Sandusky Archives - Frank Report (2024)

Dr. Frederick Crews died peacefully at age 91 on June 21, 2024.

I knew the former head of Berkeley English department and author for less than a year, but he got me started on one of the most important adventures of my life.

On October 1, 2023, I published an article which, though not about Jerry Sandusky, mentioned the old settled belief that he was guilty of raping a boy in the locker room showers at Penn State and that Joe Paterno and others were guilty of a coverup.

A Surprising Email

The following day, I received an email from Frederick Crews, someone unknown to me.

He wrote: “The truth about the Sandusky case is exactly opposite to what the public believes. Please read this, just for starters:A Shower Of Lies: Spanier, Sandusky And The Mess At Penn State.

(I later learned that Crews had a Google alert for “Jerry Sandusky” and he told me that every time Jerry’s name appeared in the media, he would doggedly send the writer one of his articles and a note. He said he had been doing this for years and I was the first to respond to him, let alone actually write a story.)

I read Crews’ article and my jaw dropped. How could this be? Was Jerry Sandusky railroaded?

And who is this Frederick Crews?

Wait. He was then 90 years old, a Ph.D professor emeritus of literature at UC Berkeley from 1958 until his retirement. I looked at his bio.

A Distinguished Career

He was chair of the English department, and the author of 14 books, including the best selling The Pooh Perplex, (1963). A serious critic of Freud and “recovered memory” psychotherapy, he wrote the classic The Memory Wars (1995).

That was interesting, for, according to Crews, the Sandusky case was built on repressed memory, something I did not know, and I think few others know.

But there was more, Crews demolished Freud in his 2017 biographical study: The Making of an Illusion.

Yes, Crews was respected. He was no gadfly. He was a contributor of the New York Review from 1964 to 2017, writing on topics such as creationism, theosophy, the UFO cult, Big Pharma, and the Rorschach test.Crews also wrote the classic composition manual, The Random House Handbook (1974), which through six editions reached over a million readers.

As I looked online, I saw that, at Berkeley, Crews won a Distinguished Teaching Award, a Faculty Research Lectureship, and the Berkeley Citation, and was chosen a Berkeley Fellow. He received Fulbright and Guggenheim fellowships, was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and became a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

He was a distinguished doubter, a man unafraid to challenge conventional thinking.

A New Cause

And later, I learned that from 2018 to his death this month, he “devoted himself to one cause, arguing for the innocence of the convicted ‘child molester’ Jerry Sandusky, whom he had come to know.”

In Crews’ view, the Sandusky case was “an egregious instance of prosecutorial misconduct.”

I spoke to Crews on the phone, and he sounded like a middle aged man. He was eager for me to take up the cause. After I got off, I asked an editor friend, why would a distinguished retired college professor, at age 90, put his reputation on the line for one of the highest profile open and shut prosecutions in legal history?

And I answered my own question: He believed it, and he was no fool. I was not convinced, however. Not yet. But I became convinced.

After studying the case for 25 days, I wrote to Crews, “Looks to me like Sandusky is innocent.”

Crews replied at once: “Thank you for saying so! I hope, now, that you’ll be able to convey that opinion as a journalist. If you have time for the reading, here’s a fuller account of the case: Sandusky: The House of Cards.

A Growing Network

It was another excellent article he had written, which had received too little attention.

Through Crews, I met other serious writers and researchers who believe Sandusky is innocent. This strengthened my confidence. I was in good company.

First and foremost, he insisted I read Mark Pendergrast’s The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rusth to Judgment, and got me a copy of the book. Crews called Pendergrast’s book ‘a forensic masterpiece,’ and it is.

Any human being on the face of the earth who reads this book will never look at the Sandusky case as a fair trial.

Crews also introduced me to Ralph Cipriano, who had published Crews’ articles and wrote quite a few himself.

Crews also introduced me to the writings of John Ziegler, the first man who did not know Jerry Sandusky to proclaim Sandusky’s innocence. His work is voluminous, and it tremendously helped me.

Crews also introduced me to Jerry’s wife Dottie Sandusky, a former coach with Sandusky and his true friend, Dick Anderson, and finally, through Dottie, I spoke with Jerry Sandusky from prison. I have interviewed Sandusky more than 100 times.

A New Direction

It took me more than two months to publish my first story, which repeated the line I first got from Crews, on December 10, 2023.

The story was The Sandusky Case is Exactly Opposite to What the Public Believes’: The Case Against Jerry Sandusky Reexamined

It immediately attracted interest, and I’ve written more than 50 stories now, including two which I co-authored for the Daily Mail, one of the most read publications in the world.

The bottom line is that Sandusky is innocent, though when Crews contacted me, perhaps only a few thousand knew it, and millions believed otherwise – that he was guilty.

How could the courts be wrong? How could eight trial accusers be liars? How could prosecutors cheat and police mislead, and Penn State Trustees sell a man down the river to save a college football season?

Over the next eight months, as I published stories to an ever widening audience, Crews and I spoke frequently. He often offered editorial suggestions. He was a stickler for punctuation, and he would send me meticulously noted corrections to my copy. I remember he hammered me on my failing to use the word “had” when it was, at least in formal writing, appropriate.

Indeed, I told him once that I cannot now even use the word “had” anymore without thinking of him.

We disagreed on only one point: I believe all eight accusers at Sandusky’s trial knew they were lying. He thought it was at least possible that some of them, through bogus repressed memory therapy, might have been hypnotized to believe Sandusky molested them when he did not molest them.

A Final Conversation

My co-author at the Daily Mail, Emma James, probably did the last interview of Frederick Crews about a week before he died. He was brilliant in his answers to her questions, and sounded nothing like an old man who had only days to live.

On June 17, I wrote my final email to Crews, which mentioned that the Daily Mail article would soon be published.

“I’ll be sure to send it out when it is live – or perhaps you’ll get the Google alert first. ”

A Final Message

Less than an hour later, Crews responded.

“Dear Frank,

He then added, “My only regret about leaving now is that I can’t do more for Jerry and Dottie. The fact that you grasped the torch and are running with it so powerfully is a great consolation to me. And I’m glad I was able to put in a final two cents with the Daily Mail.”

He then referred to the piety of Jerry and Dottie Sandusky and concluded, “They, and you, will soon be notified of my death. I am attaching a too-long obituary that will be sent to some publications. Make of it what you will. Thanks for all you’ve done and are continuing to do! Best, Fred.”

Sandusky’s Message

I broke the news to Jerry Sandusky, who emailed a note from prison to his wife, who shared it with Jerry’s many supporters:

Fred Crews was an active man, who competed in local road races until age 72, and remained a skier, swimmer, bodysurfer, and mountain hiker into his mid-eighties. He rode his motorcycle until he was 87.

It was typical of Crews that he wrote his own obituary and released it hours before he died.

Long ago, he chose the sardonic text for his tombstone: “‘But I thought I had tenure!”

Crews gave me permission to republish his works on Sandusky, and I have already published several of them. In accordance with his wishes in the coming days, I will publish the remaining articles, which he updated shortly before he died.

The post Berkeley Professor, Best Selling Author, Dr. Frederick Crews Has Died; His Last Message Was of Jerry Sandusky’s Innocence appeared first on Frank Report.

More than ten years after his conviction for sexual assault and grooming, disgraced Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky maintains his innocence, telling DailyMail.com that his accusers were manipulated by investigators and motivated by money, in an explosive new interview.

Additional Frank Report comment to amplify the truth.

Whether you agree money motivated them or not, the eight accusers at trial settled with Penn State for between $1.5 million and #20 million.

Sandusky, 80, was found guilty in 2012 of 45 counts of sexual abuse of ten boys he met at his Second Mile charity which allegedly took place over a period of 15 years between 1994 to 2009.

Two of the ten “boys” never appeared at trial. Why? Because the prosecutors said they did not know their names. They never interviewed them. They heard about them, but could not find them. Hearsay evidence was used to convict Sandusky.

None of the eight “boys” who testified were boys when they testified. The youngest was 18. None of them reported any abuse to anyone during the time of the alleged abuse. None of the accusers came forward on their own. Police and the prosecutors recruited them.

Speaking from Laurel Highlands State Correctional Institution inPennsylvania, the former defensive coach again insisted that he was innocent of the charges he was convicted of.

‘I never ever in my life ever thought about molesting anybody,’ he told DailyMail.com.

‘I was accused of heinous crimes, which I’ve never committed. My wife was my only partner in sex and that was after marriage.

‘I was in disbelief in terms of how this happened. Why were they [accuser] saying things that were so inconsistent with what they had said before?

‘I believe I was wrongfully convicted by inconsistent, perjured testimony.’

The eight liars changed their stories all the time. Let me give you an example: So-called victim 3, Jason Simcisko.

SIMCISKO and His Changing Numbers

On July 19, 2011, Jason Simcisko, then 24, told PA State Troopers that he had extensive contact with Jerry Sandusky when he was in 7th, 8th, and 9th grades. He stayed overnight at the Sandusky’s residence on numerous occasions during that time. He also accompanied Sandusky on a speaking engagement at Syracuse College. He also trained at Penn State football facilities with Sandusky on numerous occasions.

Simcisko stated Sandusky never once attempted anything inappropriate.

Of Sandusky, Simcisko said, “I lost touch with him around the time I went into 10th grade. I was in a lot of trouble then; in and out of foster homes and stuff…. I don’t believe any of this stuff is true and I hope that he’s found not guilty.”

This was less than a year before the beginning of the trial, but well after the publicity and common knowledge in the small rural towns surrounding and dependent on Penn State as the region’s economic driver, that Penn State would pay for any person who cared to show up and say they were a victim – once Sandusky was convicted.

Exactly one month later, on August 18, Simcisko told Scott Rossman of the PA State Police a very different story. He said Sandusky began being inappropriate after they worked out in the public Penn State locker room shower.

He said he showered with Sandusky six times and felt Sandusky’s penis three of these times. He added he stayed at Sandusky’s residence approximately 20 times. Sandusky would always come in to “tuck him in.”

This is when there would be rubbing and other inappropriate behavior from Sandusky, Simcisko now told police, who were careful not to tape record any interviews lest, as one trooper said, it might help the defense.

All of a sudden, Simcisko’s story is similar to the other boys who had civil lawyers and planned to sue Penn State once Sandusky was tried and convicted.

Samcisko had a lawyer too. After meeting with his civil lawyer in January 2012, Simcisko added more instances of abuse by Sandusky, such as Sandusky kissing his shoulder and washing his butt in the shower.

By the time he testified at Sandusky’s trial, Simcisko upped the number of abuse incidents from 20 to 50.

After the trial and sentencing were over, it was time to cash in at Penn State for his testimony at trial.

Simcisko upped the number of abuse incidents to over 100 times.In his Penn State intake form, he said he felt like Sandusky’s “girlfriend.”

On September 4, 2013 Penn State settled with Simcisko for $7,250,000.

Under the leadership of Penn State trustee Ira Lubert, Penn State never questioned Simcisko about his changing story or had him examined by a psychologist trained in detecting liars. In fact, no one at Penn State spoke with Simciscko at all. They took him at his word, as represented by his attorney.

I don’t know about anybody else, but I smell a rat. Or, rather, a whole nest of them.

TIMELINE

July 19, 2011 – First PSP Interview Nothing inappropriate

August 18, 2011 – Now states there were around 20 times
January 2912 – Meets with Attorney Matthew A Casey et al
June 12, 2012 – Testifies that the number of times is over 50
Fall, 2012 – Tells PSU Attorneys there are over 100 instances

September 4, 2013 – Gets payment of $7,250,000 from PSU

[Sandusky] maintains his accusers were ‘vulnerable and susceptible’ people who were ‘coached and led’ by law enforcement and two therapists – who he blames for the ‘inconsistent testimony’.

The former Penn State coach believes that his accusers were ‘incentivized’ by money, adding that ‘nobody came forward on their own’.

In our next post, we will prove the above statement by Sandusky in spades.

The post Sandusky Breakthrough in Mainstream Media Heralds a New Possible View: ‘Wrongful Conviction’ appeared first on Frank Report.

In our last Sandusky post, we reported how the lead prosecutor of Jerry Sandusky, Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, got himself and three judges fired for his love of sharing p*rn, racist jokes, and other underhanded deeds.

He was the perfect man – entirely lacking in ethics – to lead the Sandusky prosecution.

While prosecuting Sandusky, Fina had a cozy relationship with Judge Barry Feudale, who was in charge of the Sandusky grand jury.

The grand jury leaks to the media that ensued were illegal and turned the Sandusky prosecution into a trial by media more than a year before the criminal trial.

After Sandusky’s conviction, Feudale appointed Fina to investigate who leaked the grand jury information.

Fina tried hard to investigate, he said, but could not find the leaker. After all, he was not going to arrest himself.

Post-Conviction Tactics

After Fina convicted the innocent Jerry Sandusky, he wanted to get Penn State administrators Timothy Curley, Gary Schultz, and university president Graham Spanier for a supposed coverup that never happened.

All three testified before a grand jury that they had no information that suggested Sandusky had abused anyone, much less raped a boy a decade earlier, as was alleged and leaked to the media.

Cynthia Baldwin was Penn State’s general counsel, and she accompanied Curley, Schultz, and Spanier during their grand jury testimonies.

In PA, only an attorney for the witness can attend the grand jury with the witness.

The three men testified separately.

All three testified they never heard Sandusky raped a boy in the Penn State shower room.

Fina’s Desperation

The truth was not helpful to prosecutor Fina.

Seeing he did not have Spanier, Schultz, or Curley, he hoped to flip Baldwin and get them.

She had been late turning over some documents he had subpoenaed from Penn State, and Fina threatened to indict Baldwin on obstruction of justice charges.

He also clarified that he wanted her to testify that her clients lied about knowing nothing about Sandusky raping a boy in the Penn State locker room more than a decade earlier and covered it up.

Baldwin knew Fina could indict her as fast as you can say “ham sandwich.”

She also knew Fina did not want her. He wanted Graham Spanier to put the icing on the Sandusky conviction cake.

Baldwin could call Fina’s bluff. But she had plans to retire with a pension and live in the Caribbean during the winter.

An indictment would cost her life savings and kill her tropical island escapades filled with sun-drenched beaches, vibrant music, and exotic adventures.

Baldwin’s Deal

All Baldwin had to do to ensure the good life she had worked so hard for was to testify as Fina needed.

He was clear: he wanted to indict her clients for perjury, but he would settle with indicting her if he had to.

Perjury is in the eye of the beholder in PA, which means she did not have to worry about lying to the grand jury as long as she lied the way Fina wanted.

This is how it works in PA, at least in the Sandusky case.

But Baldwin was smart. First, she wanted a deal (a proffer) with Fina: If she told him what he wanted, he would have to guarantee she would not be charged.

After all, she knew Fina was a snake who would use her like a cheap whor* to sell out her clients and then turn around and nail her with obstruction anyway.

So, Baldwin cut a deal. She would tell Fina anything he wanted to hear provided he did not indict her.

A Conspiratorial Agreement

Fina assured her he only wanted to question her about her privileged conversations with Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. She agreed, and the two conspirators, Fina and Baldwin, cut a deal to sell out her clients.

Still, there were some details to work out.

According to PA Rules of Professional Conduct 3.10, a prosecutor must obtain prior judicial approval before bringing a lawyer to the grand jury to ask about clients.

But that was easy. The judicial approval would come from Fina’s p*rn buddy Feudale.

Judge Feudale held a hearing on Baldwin’s testimony on October 22, 2012.

During that hearing, Fina told his buddy Judge Feudale that he would not invade any attorney-client privilege that the three Penn State administrators could claim.

He said he would not question Baldwin about Spanier, Schultz, or Curley’s “testimony before the grand jury, and any preparation for or follow-up they had” with her.

Judge Feudale, perhaps with a wink to his p*rn buddy, who loved to send racist jokes (Baldwin is black), allowed Fina to call Baldwin based on the stipulation that Fina would not question Baldwin about her representation of the Penn State administrators.

The Grand Jury Testimony

To get around this, Fina and Baldwin planned a neat little trick. He would do everything he told Feudale he would not do by having Baldwin pretend she was not Spanier, Curley’s, and Schultz’s attorney but that she only represented Penn State.

When Baldwin appeared before the grand jury, Fina, knowing that the grand jury minutes were secret unless he leaked them and knowing he had nothing to fear from p*rn buddy Feudale, went straight ahead and questioned Baldwin about her communications with Schultz, Curley, and Spanier.

Fina asked about her discussions with the administrators regarding the grand jury’s investigation, their responses to her requests for subpoenaed materials, and Spanier’s preparation for his grand jury testimony—all privileged.

But even though she broke privilege, the truth was helpful to Spanier, Schultz, and Curley. They had told the truth in the grand jury.

The more Fina questioned Baldwin in the grand jury about her communications with the three administrators, the more she lied to tell Fina what he wanted to hear.

Based on a practical analysis of what we know today and what she testified in 2012, Baldwin perjured herself at least 50 times during her grand jury testimony.

Baldwin’s Happy Lies

They were happy lies. She saved herself, and thanks to her Fina, she indicted the innocent Spanier, Curley, and Schultz for perjury.

In other words, he used Baldwin’s perjury to indict the three innocent men for perjury.

A decent trade, she thought at the time.

By the end of 2012, Sandusky was in prison. Spanier, Schultz, and Curley’s lives were on hold, and they were finally convicted – Spanier, of a misdemeanor.

Life went on for the victors; Baldwin went down to the Caribbean and had the time of her life.

Fina wore the laurels of his high-profile convictions—Jerry Sandusky and the three top administrators at Penn State.

Disciplinary Actions

However, on January 10, 2018, the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition alleging Fina had violated Pennsylvania’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.10 because he had told Judge Feudale he would “not question Baldwin in any way that would invade attorney-client privilege” and then he did and used the invading of privilege to indict three men.

During an oral argument before the High Court in November, Amelia Kittredge with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel called Fina “someone who cannot or will not separate right from wrong.”

On February 19, 2020, the Supreme Court suspended Fina for a year and a day.

The PA Supreme Court justices issued a 5-1 decision to suspend Frank Fina’s license for a year and a day.

Justice David Wecht called Fina’s punishment “manifestly appropriate.” He said lawyer-client privilege issues should have been hammered out before Baldwin testified.

“Instead, Fina chose to mislead the supervising judge, causing that jurist to believe such resolution was unnecessary because Fina undertook to refrain from inquiry into areas of potential privilege,” Wecht wrote. “Fina promptly reneged on those assurances. This conduct fell far below the ethical standard we rightly demand of a prosecutor in this type of situation.”

Baldwin’s Censure

For her role in it, the Supreme Court decided to discipline Baldwin for violations of multiple Pennsylvania rules of professional conduct by testifying to the grand jury regarding privileged communications.

She received a public censure without suspension.

“It is impossible to conclude in light of the seriousness and solemnity of the warnings administered by the supervising judge that the individual clients believed anything other than their personal interests were being protected” by Baldwin, Justice Dougherty wrote in the opinion announcing her punishment.

Justice Dougherty wrote in a 4-0 opinion that Baldwin’s public reprimand is warranted because she “has never contemplated, much less expressed, remorse.”

Remorse? Why should she? She avoided an indictment by throwing her clients under the bus, and that’s a deal she would make any time.

The Supreme Court found Baldwin guilty of professional misconduct and issued her a public reprimand, saying “her simultaneous representations…reflected incompetence, violated her obligation to avoid conflicts of interest, resulted in the revelation of client confidences, and prejudiced the proper administration of justice with significant personal and public effect.”

The court formally censured her on July 22, 2020.

Baldwin began a public relations campaign, saying she was the victim of racial discrimination by former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Saylor. It did not work.

She found it very hard to get new clients and decided the Caribbean was a more forgiving place than America, where they did not appreciate how she was a great black leader and that racism made her lie and betray her clients.

Feudale’s Removal

The Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania investigated Judge Feudale for his actions, filed formal charges, and conducted a hearing that led to his removal. The PA Supreme Court removed Judge Feudale from the bench due to his unethical relationship with prosecutor Frank Fina, leaking confidential grand jury documents, and involvement in Fina’s ‘p*rngate’ scandal.

Such were the ethics of the prosecutors, lawyers, and judges in the Sandusky case, where the innocent went to prison, and the guilty went to the Caribbean.

The post Dirty Deeds: How Fina, Feudale and Baldwin Tarnished the Case Against Sandusky and Spanier (Part 3) appeared first on Frank Report.

Please remember that all the good guys were the bad guys. All the victims were abusers, and the convict, Jerry Sandusky, was the victim. Then you can understand what happened in this historic miscarriage of justice.

Right now, we are talking about p*rnography.

When the police raided Sandusky’s house and seized his computers, they did not find any p*rn, not even a forensic trace of it. He not only never stored p*rn, but even did not search for it. On the other hand, his chief prosecutor, Frank Fina, had p*rn on his office computer at the Attorney General’s office.

Fina loved to share p*rn with judges he would appear before, and lawyers he would oppose. He would use his government email to send p*rn to judges and lawyers, including his buddy Barry Feudale, the judge in charge of the grand juries, all kinds of fun p*rn and racist jokes.

He loved a good racist joke, as well as the next prosecutor or judge in the good old boy network in good old Pennsylvania.

He also liked jokes about gays, bestial*ty, and rape, which when you deliver justice – and decide the fate of men and women – can be a source of hilarity. You can also lighten the heavy load that you don’t know sometimes if the man you’re going to frame into prison for life is guilty.

When you make tense things like that fun by showing a photo of a man “taking a leak” in the mouth of a naked woman tied on the floor, you forget the seriousness of presenting evidence you selectively presented to the grand jury and withheld from the defense, knowing that the defendant will never ask for it, for he probably won’t know it exists.

Judge Feudale was kicked off the bench for leaking secret grand jury materials and his unusual preference for his p*rn-sharing buddy Frank Fina. But some say Feudale got kicked off the bench for taking a leak on the Constitution.

Still, everyone agreed Feudale was Fina’s stooge and would do anything Fina ordered him to do.

Fun in Court

It made for some interesting hijinks during various court appearances, as Fina prosecuted innocent defendants, acting all outraged in front of the judge about the terrible conduct of the defendants, when an hour before, he just sent Sarah Palin’s head on a naked body with a pointy object stuck in every orifice – including her nostrils – or having sex with an animal. This helped bond Fina and the judges in a unison of p*rn, and convictions, which helped them conduct their nasty business of putting people away.

Justice became less of a nuisance under Frank Fina.

Two judges got kicked off the bench because of Fina’s Frolic AKA p*rngate, or actually three if you count Feudale, who handled the Sandusky grand jury case and shared with Fina not only p*rn but grand jury leaks. But we must enjoy his p*rn-sharing with a group of judges and lawyers during Tom Corbett’s term as Attorney General.

What Kind of p*rn Did He Send?

Here is a tiny selection of what Fina and the judges shared to elevate their minds, and then appeared in court together, supposedly with a separation of powers between the judiciary and the prosecution.

Women engaged in sexually-suggestive poses with statues, signs, and other objects.

An obese nude woman wearing a pig costume.Caption: “How to tell if your house is infected with the swine flu.”.

A woman squatting to relieve herself

Wal-Mart women

Walmart weddings:

A man tasers a woman in a park, then rapes her.

A nude woman, on a couch, with a skeleton between her legs, performing oral sex on her.

A video clip about Nintendo games which women “should” play, including games that simulate cooking and performing oral sex on men.

“Daily Meds,” contains pictures of nude women.

A video of female breasts bouncing to the song “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.”

A picture of a woman with a can of beer between her bare breasts, and the warning, “Don’t do this to a can of beer, it will get warm and explode.”

A topless woman on her back, giving oral sex to a man : “WILLINGNESS: Bend over backwards to do an exceptional job.”

A woman giving oral sex. “DEVOTION: Making your boss happy is your only job.”

Pictures of bare breasted women entitled “We stare because we care.”

“Will the Dollar Fall,” a dollar bill squeezed between a woman’s buttocks.

“Friendship strings,” a reference to g-string panties worn by women.

A warning against using a corn cob for a vibrator.

A topless woman with her legs spread, with her genital area covered by popcorn.

A joke about a man taking a woman out to an expensive restaurant, where she orders expensive items on the menu. The man asks, “Does your mother feed you like this when you eat at home?” The woman responds, “No, but my mother is not expecting a blow j*b.”

A marriage counselor asks a couple what they both have in common. The husband responds, “Well, for starters, neither one of us sucks dick.”

“Farewell to my Golf Friends,” which includes pictures of bare breasted women and their buttocks.

“Banana Split” featured images of two women performing sexual acts.

Motivational Poster: “Dear Abby, I’m an 18 year-old virgin in Arkansas. Are my brothers gay?”

Christmas Candy,” a woman taking off her clothes and performing numerous sex acts.

“Real Man’s Chain Letter” featuring women in wet t-shirt contests.

“The best engine in the world is the vagin*. It can be started with one finger. It is self­ lubricating. It takes any size piston. And it changes its own oil every four weeks. It is only a pity that the management system is so f*cking temperamental.”

Bare breasted women of increasing breast size entitled “Cup sizes.”

A woman wearing a T-shirt emblazoned: “WIFE: Washing, Ironing, F**ing, Etc.” ( caption? “PLACE: Know it!”

Fina’s Racist Fun

“Prom Night at Camden High School.” black students in unusual prom attire.

Joke: “In a survey, 86% of Inner City residents (most of whom are registered Democrats) said that they have enjoyed sex in the shower. The other 14% said that they have not been to prison yet.”

Joke: “Leroy” asks a preacher to pray for help with his hearing. The preacher prays and asks how his hearing is, and Leroy says, “I don’t know, Reverend, it ain’t till next Wednesday.”

Video: “What have we done?” asks a black woman, speaking about Barack Obama’s election and saying, because of that, black people won’t have to “pay bills.” She later bemoans that black people will “have to get jobs” and will no longer get a government assistance check.

A white man, carrying a bucket of fried chicken, is accosted by two deranged-looking black men.

Equal Opportunity Racist

“The craziest white man ever,” a white man picking up Hispanics (“beaners”) at Home Depot, offering them work at his home, then takes them to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.

Joke: Silver robot caddies reflect the sun and blind golfers; one golfer asks the man in the golf shop, “Why didn’t you paint them black?” The man said, “We did. Then four of ’em didn’t show for work, two filed for welfare, one of them robbed the pro shop, and the other thinks he’s the President.”

Joke: “It was said that a black man would be president when ‘pigs fly.’ Indeed, 100 days into Obama’s presidency…swine flu.”

Mohammed Brand Condoms, “jihadists wear the condoms so they do not have to worry about the sexual pasts of their goats.”

Black is In “shows pictures of black celebrities, including Obama, and concluding with “…Michael Jackson must be kicking himself.”

A “Magic green hat” cleared out an emergency room. The hat was a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol hat, the emergency room was full of illegal immigrants.

Two Muslim women reminisce about their children. One woman says, “they blow up so fast, don’t they?”

Underage

Pictures of small children ogling women’s breasts.

A woman on a nude beach with a baby sitting next to her, grabbing one of her nipples.

A small child putting the breasts of an unclothed Barbie doll in his mouth.

“Prayer for dad” with a picture of a young girl praying, “Dear God, please send clothes for all the ladies on Daddy’s computer. Amen.”

Photo: Why I failed 4th Grade,”An elementary school teacher asks, “So an abstract noun is something you can think of but not touch…Can you give me two examples…” A student responds, “Your tit*.”

A joke about a little girl getting a ticket from a mounted policeman for a safety violation on her boke and the girl responds , “the dick goes beneath the horse, not on top of it.”

Gay Pride

Sending a photo of many men engaged in a group sex act, Fina asks,“How friggin gay are you?”

Yes, this is the man who prosecuted the innocent Jerry Sandusky and succeeded in putting him in prison for 30-60 years. Put three innocent Penn State administrators in prison for his witch hunt (more on that later), got three judges removed from office for his p*rn and grand jury leaking and left a trail of tears wherever he went. Along that trail, he got fired for his p*rn efforts from his job as a prosecutor in the district attorney’s office.

As I said, in the Jerry Sandusky story, the villains are believed to be the good guys; everything is 180 degrees different from the truth, liars won the day, and an innocent man sits in prison.

In our next post, we will discuss how Fina intimidated the cowardly lawyer Cynthia Baldwin to sell out her clients and ensure the innocent Sandusky would remain in prison. He also got his law license suspended for a year and a day for this caper.

The post Dirty Emails and Racist Jokes: The Scandal of Sandusky Prosecutor Frank Fina (Part 2) appeared first on Frank Report.

What a cast of characters we have in the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky.All the supposed good guys were the bad guys in this story.

The judges were biased and crooked, the politicians were vengeful and dishonest. The prosecutors were villains riding on a high horse, and the lawyers were incompetent and worse.

The accusers were liars and money-grubbing grifters.

Some board of trustees were shape-shifters seeking to take care of themselves.

And the media was deplorable. The police and the investigator Louis Freeh were abominable liars.

Sandusky Was a Hero

Jerry Sandusky was railroaded into prison by a corrupt combination of perjurers – accusers, prosecutors, a despicable judge, shyster civil lawyers, a vicious governor and a cowardly, malicious, reckless media, and greedy group of Penn State trustees – and others.

Only a few heroes here: Jerry Sandusky, his wife, the three men who were collateral damage – Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley.

Above them all is Sandusky himself, a great American and a man of unusual strength.

The sad*st and the Coward

But let us meet two villains in the Sandusky case, and how they revealed who they are through their relationship with each other.

So many of these so-called good people showed their true colors through their actions and as interpreted by time.If there is one word that separates the villains from the good ones, the angels, it is the lying.

You who study the Sandusky case will realize that all the villains lied.

They knew they were lying. They may have thought they were justified at the time, because not everyone could be lying about Sandusky. If they lied, the others weren’t lying, so they justified their lies and the money they took from Penn State.

Now let’s talk about two big liars, two villains, both lawyers. One of them was the lawyer for Penn State, Cynthia Baldwin, and the other was the lead prosecutor, the deplorable, despicable man with a rat’s visage, a co*ckroach’s heart and schemer’s brain, a villain even among villains, a man who would ruin anybody for the pure joy of hurting another human being; Senior Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina.

He and Baldwin had quite a dance of fate. They both ruined each other’s reputations.

The Incompetent Cynthia Baldwin

Cynthia Baldwin had been a judge in Allegheny County for a while. She had also become a Penn State trustee, a non-paying job, but an opportunity to find opportunities for herself. Then, one day, a vacancy came up in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The position is usually elected, but in this case, there were two years left of somebody else’s term.

The governor of PA fills vacancies when they crop up. He wanted to make it a diversity appointment. So, he chose the most safely incompetent appointment he could, and still appear on board with diversity.

So, he cut a deal with Baldwin, where she could fill the two years on the term, boost up her pension, and have the prestige of being on the Supreme Court for a time, even though everyone knew she was nowhere near competent enough to rule on the abstruse and subtle legal points sometimes put before the PA Supreme Court.

So, he made the deal. Baldwin agreed she would only stay for two years, serve the unexpired term, and not run on her own for a term.She could no more be a Supreme Court judge, for example, than a lawyer to represent anybody in a serious capacity.

While she was good at schmoozing, she wasn’t competent as an attorney or judge. Baldwin filled the term, and she saw that she would need some income at the end of the two years.

Baldwin Creates a Job for Herself

While serving as an unpaid member of the Penn State board of trustees, she crafted a clever plan to create a new $300,000 per year position at Penn State, the new general counsel position for the university. Baldwin cleverly figured Penn State could use her incompetence for an extra $300,000 annually.

Baldwin proved her incompetence as a lawyer for Penn State when she lied 80 plus times to the grand jury and threw her innocent clients under the bus in a cowardly act to save herself from indictment.We will tell that story in detail later.

It was part of Fina’s coverup of the wrongful conviction of the innocent Jerry Sandusky to make him look guilty by convicting three other innocent men.

Baldwin displayed the only idea of justice she ever understood — save her capacious ass at all costs, including the truth.

Fina Loses His Law License for Lying

Frank Fina, the above-mentioned psychopathic chief of criminal prosecutions of the office of the attorney general, led the investigation of Jerry Sandusky. Later, Fina lost his law license for a year and a day over his handling of Baldwin as a grand jury witness.He threatened her, and she perjured herself.

p*rn Boy Fina

The Philadelphia DA also fired Fina as an Assistant District Attorney before his suspension for his role in p*rngate. That is a story for another day. But suffice to say Frank Fina loved to share p*rn with judges he would appear in front of and lawyers he would oppose, or perhaps to say it more accurately, lawyers he would cut backroom deals with to sell their clients down the river, if not drown them altogether.

Fina was fond of using his official attorney general’s email account to send p*rn to judges and lawyers, sometimes with an intimidating innuendo or two, but always in good, clean, dirty fun.

Later, when he left the attorney general’s office, he tried to scrub those emails from the attorney general’s computers. But, forensic analysts found them anyway, which Fina always felt was unfair, for he always felt he could use emails against defendants, but no one should use an email of a prosecutor against him.

He had used the tool of an old email taken out of context and Baldwin’s perjury to charge Penn State President Graham Spanier with perjury.

In Fina’s case, there were thousands of emails. p*rn was the coin of the realm in Fina’s world while he was busy falsely convicting Jerry Sandusky and others.

Stay tuned for more on the sad*st and the coward.

The post Baldwin and Fina: Villains of the Sandusky Case Exposed (Part 1) appeared first on Frank Report.

In my opinion, Judge John Cleland takes the cake for the most corrupt and biased judge. This prosecutor in black robes is the only judge I have ever heard of who conducted a secret court meeting, with no court reporter, hidden from the public and not in his courtroom.

Judge Clelandheld his hearing at a motel.

On December 12, 2011, Judge Cleland was present with Jerry Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, the prosecutors, including the deplorable Frank Fina, and District Magistrate Scott at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College. They met in a private room.

The defendant, Jerry Sandusky, was not present.

It was the night before the preliminary hearing when Judge Cleland held his “secret” meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn.

At the Hilton Garden Inn, they struck a deal that Amendola would waive Sandusky’s right to the preliminary hearing if the prosecution promised not to seek higher bail if additional accusers were forthcoming.

The prosecutors and Amendola also agreed to Judge Cleland’s demand for a super-rapid trial schedule.

The entire discussion was “off the record”.

Of course, an ethical attorney would never have attended such a meeting, but Sandusky’s attorney was Joe Amendola.

He should have refused to attend a secret, unrecorded, un-transcribed meeting with Judge Cleland and prosecutor Fina to waive a preliminary hearing.

At the preliminary hearing, the defense could have questioned the lying pack of accusers about their mental health history, exposure to repressed memory therapy, civil attorneys offering millions for Sandusky abuse “memories”, and state police’s abusive interviewing practices.

The other thing that Judge Cleland accomplished at the motel meeting – and both Amendola and Fina understood – was that there would be a sham trial to comply with Cleland’s “conviction-death-march” rapid trial schedule.

At the Hilton Garden Inn, defense attorney Amendola agreed to his client’s conviction by agreeing to an impossibly rapid trial schedule and waiving the preliminary hearing.

Co-conspirators Fina-Cleland-Amendola did not tell anyone about the secret off-the-record motel meeting until 2016 – four years after the trial and conviction of Sandusky. It is possible that Amendola, Fina, and Clelanda criminally agreed to sabotage Sandusky’s case (like the PA Kids for Cash corruption scheme) to ensure a conviction.

Why So Fast?

I believe Cleland was given orders to convict Sandusky no later than summer 2102 to save the local economy from hundreds of millions of dollars in losses by preventing an NCAA “death penalty” for the PSU football program.

The three conspirators also facilitated the political goals of Gov Tom Corbett, a mentor-ally of Cleland, Fina, and Acting Attorney General Linda Kelley.

Ethical, Who Me?

An ethical attorney would never have attended such a hotel meeting and kept it secret from his client and co-counsel in the case.But we are talking about Joe Amendola.

An ethical defense attorney would not have stayed in the case if they had “lacked time to even review basic evidence” or had “no time to retain and hire essential expert witnesses,” as Amendola claimed in his “covering-up corruption” motions for additional time and to withdraw (both of which he pre-arranged with Cleland to lose).

Given the lack of time to prepare, Amendola had no ethical path, but to resign from the case – but he stayed and participated in a historically corrupt trial.

Why is Amendola’s Argument About Bail Bullsh*t?

Amendola said he waived the preliminary hearing because the prosecution said, “We’re going to add additional charges onto Sandusky’s case, and we’re going to ask for a million dollars bond,” which Sandusky couldn’t have met.
Amendola said he made a deal with the prosecution that if he waived the preliminary hearing, they wouldn’t raise Sandusky’s bond, and he could remain free on bond, pending the trial.

The prosecution did not want a preliminary hearing.

However, if the prosecutors had made a motion to raise the bail, Amendola could have opposed it. The district magistrate sets the bail, not the prosecution. Under the rules, there’s no valid reason why they should have raised the bail. Sandusky was not going to run. He was subject to home confinement. He presented no threat to the community. Amendola should have successfully kept the bond the same without waiving the preliminary hearing. Even if the magistrate raised the bail, Amendola could have appealed it to the Court of Common Pleas judge, John Cleland.

Instead, they have an off-the-record meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn the night before the preliminary hearing.

Judge Cleland was present. He could ultimately decide if he would raise the bond.

He did not say to the prosecutors that, based on the rules, there was no reason to raise the bond.

The Cleland Shuffle

During the secret motel meeting, Cleland revealed why he would extort Sandusky. He wanted to rush the trial. He said at the meeting, “We’ve got to get this thing to trial.”

Most legal proceedings presided over by a judge are in courtrooms, not motels. A stenographer would have been present.

Was the “secret unreported meeting” an illegal agreement to “rig” the trial?

Vital Need for Preliminary Hearing

The judge had scheduled Sandusky’s preliminary hearing for December 13, 2011, a few days after two new perjurers, Sabastian Paden, and Ryan Rittmeyer, came forward with their lies, and prosecutors added new charges.

At the preliminary hearing, had the conspirators not agreed to cancel it, Amendola could have questioned alleged victims about mental health, criminal record, number and type of police and prosecutor interviews, the changes in their stories, memory-contaminating psychotherapy issues, repressed memory ideology, indoctrination issues, number and type of interviews, exposure to civil attorneys offering millions for abuse “memories,” the state police’s abusive interviewing practices and other essential information.

The basis for a good cross-examination at trial would have been the testimony at the preliminary hearing. The testimony at the preliminary hearing would have been different from what the accusers testified at trial.

The preliminary hearing results would have produced the predicate for a FRYE hearing that may have excluded many of the alleged victim witnesses. But a FRYE hearing would have delayed the trial.

It was essential to get testimony from the alleged victims on the record so that the defense knew who and what they were up against. If the witnesses changed their stories at trial, they could use that previous testimony to impeach them.

Instead, Joe Amendola met with prosecutors Joe McGettigan, Frank Fina, Jonelle Eshbach, and two judges—John Cleland, who would preside over the trial, and the district magistrate judge.

The conspirators agreed to waive the preliminary hearing and create an impossibly rapid trial schedule. If this is not corruption, Pennsylvania style, then nothing is corruption.

A federal investigation is warranted.

The post Sandusky’s Defense Sabotaged: The Truth About Judge Cleland’s Secret Motel Meeting appeared first on Frank Report.

On November 7, 2011, the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed an indictment alleging retired Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky had sexually abused ten boys over the past 14 years. All the accusers were men at the time of the indictment.Eight showed up at the grand jury (and trial), but two never appeared.

Eight Accusers, No Evidence

One went into hiding, and the other never existed. All the accusers received millions.Frank Report is in the process of showing how all the accusers lied to make millions.

Collusion of Powerful Figures

In this first in a series of articles on the conspiracy of Merck CEO Ken Frazier, former PA Governor Tom Corbett, and former FBI director Louis Freeh, the Frank Report intends to show how these three men planned and executed a plot to destroy Joe Paterno, Penn State President Graham Spanier and others aligned with them. Each of the three men did it for their own reasons.

Since my opinions are my own and not complimentary to Corbett, Freeh, or Frazier, I invite them to contact me.

I will provide them space for rebuttal, or I will willingly correct the record if they can show me that I am wrong. I will not hold my breath, however. I don’t think I am wrong.

I have been calling the eight accusers of Jerry Sandusky liars and perjurers for months and also inviting them to contact me or if they prefer to sue me. I even offered to debate any one of them over my assertion that they made up their stories of Sandusky’s abuse to collect Penn State millions.

To date, not one of them has contacted me.

A pack of liars collected millions from Penn State due to the collusion of Corbett, Freeh, Frazier, and their useful idiot, Ira Lubert.

For Penn State trustee Ira Lubert, it did not matter what the claim was, it only mattered who the attorney was and how he could influence peddle Penn State money to help himself down the road. I could probably let all this low-life behavior go, except for one thing: Jerry Sandusky is 80. He is innocent and still in prison, and a pack of jackals who conspired to put him there do nothing to get him out. The least I can do is expose the pack.

False Accusations and Disappearances

Yes, the Attorney General indicted Sandusky, and along with him, the corrupt office also indicted Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley for allegedly covering up Sandusky’s alleged sexual abuse of an unknown boy (Allan Myers) in the shower room at Penn State a decade earlier.

The AG based this falsehood of a coverup on the notorious liar Mike McQueary, who said he saw a boy in the shower room at Penn State with Sandusky about ten years earlier. As a young man of 23, a Marine named Allan Myers, “the boy,” came forward and said it was all untrue and McQueary was lying. He told the newspapers and the prosecutors and signed a sworn statement saying Sandusky never abused him, in the shower or anywhere else.

Thanks to Frazier, Freeh, Corbett, and Myer’s civil attorney, Andrew Shubin, Myers went into hiding. Thanks to those above, plus Ira Lubert, head of the Penn State settlement committee, Penn State paid Myers $6.9 million, even though he had signed a sworn statement that Sandusky never abused him.

Lubert felt he deserved compensation. After all, he did hide during the trial, so the defense could not call him.

With the indictment, Schultz retired, and Penn State placed Curley on administrative leave pending the outcome of his case.

The AG implicated Penn State football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State President Graham Spanier in the bogus coverup.

The AG later charged Spanier.

Top Leaders Ousted

Two days after the indictment, the Penn State Board of Trustees fired 84-year-old Paterno after 61 years at Penn State and as the winningest college football head coach in history.

Penn State President Spanier resigned after 16 years as president.

With the indictment, Penn State trustees removed the four most able men at Penn State.

They also forever destroyed Penn State’s fundraising. Under Spanier, Schultz, and Curley’s able leadership, fundraising had surpassed $300 million a year. Then Corbett, Frazier, and Freeh desecrated Paterno, a national legend and the pride of Penn State. Donations have fallen to between $10 and $14 million annually.

The cost of the three men’s tomfoolery to Penn State is more than a billion dollars. Frankly, since many donors contributed because of Paterno, they stopped regardless of whether they believed the lies about him.

Corruption and Collusion

Governor Corbett came up with the perfect plan.

Paterno’s reputation had to be forever tarnished, and Spanier must be destroyed, or there could be pushback from their allies.

He partnered with Penn State trustee Ken Frazier to ensure the AG convicted Sandusky, Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and, if possible, Paterno. Paterno died two months after his firing, at 85.

(To show the class of Frazier, Corbett, and their vengeful ally, acting Penn State Chairman John Surma, they fired the man who made Penn State great and famous and spent 61 years doing it, not in person, but by calling him at night on the telephone.)

On November 18, 2011, Penn State announced that the law firm Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, headed by Louis Freeh, the former FBI director under Clinton and a former US District Judge, would conduct an independent investigation “of allegations of failure to report sexual abuse.”

The Penn State trustees appointed fellow trustee Frazier, the CEO of Merck & Co. Inc., as chairman of the Trustee Oversight Committee for Freeh’s investigation, along with Governor Corbett’s secretary of education, Ron Tomalis, as vice chair.

Freeh was to serve technically as the lawyer for the Penn State Trustees’ Oversight Committee headed by Frazier.

This plan made sense to Corbett, Frazier, and Freeh.

Vioxx Scandal Tied to Penn State’s Railroading of Sandusky

Freeh had done good work for Frazier at Merck, helping defeat litigants when Merck had legal troubles with its pain relief drug Vioxx.

Merck & Co., Inc. introduced Vioxx as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug to relieve and manage acute pain, including post-surgical pain and painful menstrual periods, and to treat inflammation associated with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, helping improve joint function and reduce swelling, allowing users greater mobility and comfort.

Vioxx’s sales took off from its introduction in 1999 until its withdrawal in 2004, with total sales of around $11 billion.

Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 because the secret that Merck executives knew – that it caused heart attacks and strokes – could not be kept secret any longer.

Frazier served as Merck’s General Counsel in 1999 when the company introduced Vioxx. Following the withdrawal of Vioxx, Frazier rose to CEO of the company.

In a nutshell, Vioxx made Ken Frazier.

After Merck made $11 billion in revenues from Vioxx sales, the public learned through Congressional testimony that as many as 60,000 people died from using Vioxx.

Frazier led Merck’s defense team against the 27,000 lawsuits.

The reason why Merck withdrew Vioxx in 2004 was because the results of the APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx) trial showed an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

A Real Cover-Up Exposed

Authorities discovered, however, that Merck knew about the increased risk of heart attacks and strokes in 2000, shortly after the company launched the drug. However, with legal counsel like Frazier, the company saw no reason to disclose the cardiovascular risks.

For example, the VIGOR (Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research) study conducted in 2000 showed a significant increase in heart attacks among Vioxx users compared to those taking naproxen. Merck chose not to forgo the $2 billion in annual sales, and Merck maintained the drug was safe for broader use.

In a scheme worthy of the brilliance of Ken Frazier, the study that showed that people using Vioxx had a higher incidence of heart attacks than those using Naproxen (Aleve) was due to Naproxen having cardio-protective effects, obscuring the actual risks of Vioxx.

Even when evidence of harm became incontrovertible, Merck, with Frazier managing the company’s legal direction regarding Vioxx, chose not to inform the public and regulatory bodies.

Unfortunately for Merck’s bottom line, about 140,000 people got heart attacks because of Vioxx after Frazier, and the company knew of the deathly effects. About 54 percent lived.

When this information became public, Frazier stepped to the front and implemented a legal strategy of fighting, using Merck’s enormous wealth to fight the 27,000 lawsuits individually.

Frazier teamed up with the great strategist Louis Freeh. They knew that many of the plaintiffs would die if Merck delayed settling, and their heirs might not pursue the lawsuits.

Under Frazier’s bold leadership, Merck kept billions out of the hands of sick patients, pleasing stockholders and corporate officers alike.

Finally, in a clever move that saved the company from losing all its profits from Vioxx, Frazier led Merck to a $4.85 billion settlement in 2007 to resolve personal injury lawsuits. Though this cut into the company’s profits and annoyed many stockholders, Frazier felt it was the most economical move and at least allowed Merck to retain about half of the gross revenue from Vioxx.

Still up in the air was whether the DOJ could criminally charge anyone from Merck, including Frazier.

Frazier had Merck hire Freeh to mollify the DOJ by investigating and issuing a report on Merck’s innocence.

Frazier, who always fought the lawsuits, asserted with a straight face that Merck had done nothing wrong.

In November, it was unclear if Frazier and other Merck executives were going to prison.

Then Frazier and Gov. Corbett collaborated to hire Louis Freeh to investigate a coverup that never happened at Penn State and make a report that would complete Corbett’s intended takeover of Penn State.

Frazier, who was in a vulnerable position with authorities, agreed to do Corbett’s groundwork.

Frazier pretended like he considered others for the task, finally recommending Freeh to the Board because he knew how to handle the media.

Governor Corbett was less shady. He admitted to the media that he selected Freeh for the job.

The Corbett-influenced trustees agreed to grant Frazier the power to hire Freeh to ‘serve as independent, external legal counsel to the Task Force to perform an independent, “full and complete investigation” and provide a report that would, in effect, guarantee Corbett control of Penn State by eliminating any doubt that Spanier and Paterno were innocent.

The fact that they did not cover up Jerry Sandusky’s abuse of Allan Myers – because Sandusky never abused Allan Myers and Mike McQueary never told them that Sandusky abused anyone in the shower – was perfectly irrelevant.

Immunity from Liability

Frazier and Freeh crafted an agreement that guaranteed Freeh would find what Corbett wanted without regard for the truth. This agreement also coincided with what the PA Attorney General wanted—the conviction of Sandusky, Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and, if he lived long enough, Joe Paterno.

The retainer agreement shows Freeh was told in advance that Penn State would pay him $8.3 million to make a report showing the men guilty before they went to trial.

The Freeh Agreement Spelled Out What His Independent Investigation Would Determine Before It Began

The agreement read that Freeh’s report would include:

i) “failures that occurred in the reporting process…” (as if the indicted men were already guilty of a coverup, even though none of the defendants had gone to trial and were presumably innocent until proven guilty).

ii) “the cause for the failures;” (even if there was no failure.)

iii) “who had knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse;” (even if there was no sexual abuse)

iv) “how those allegations were handled.”

Freeh’s “report also will provide recommendations to the Task Force to ensure that those failures do not occur again.” (All this before any court of law established there was a failure.)

Frazier and Corbett hired Freeh to report on how the coverup happened and how to prevent it in the future. Yet the coverup and Sandusky’s alleged abuse of a boy in a shower at Penn State were unproven.

(At the trial of Sandusky, seven months later, the jury rejected the claim Sandusky had abused a boy in the shower that allegedly Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley knew about and engaged in a conspiracy of silence to protect the university and its football teams’ reputation.)

Some Penn State students, faculty, alums, and the public criticized the board for firing loyal employees without any evidence of guilt and bringing in Freeh to report on a coverup before a jury convicted anyone of anything.

In a show of hot temper that had served him well at Merck, Frazier argued Penn State needed (like Merck had needed) to protect its reputation, and that superseded due process (just like profits at Merck superseded the lives of 60,000 people).

Frazier said publicly, “We can take employment actions, we can take corrective actions without any need to resort to the so-called due process, reasonable doubt standard, and I don’t care if they are acquitted.”

For Frazier, the Vioxx scandal was a matter of money. The fact that 60,000 innocent people died was of no concern to corporate executives. Unsurprisingly, he did not care if innocent people at Penn State were acquitted.

Frazier wisely provided Freeh with the freedom to write a report regardless of the truth by crafting the agreement to read that Penn State would pay Free $8.3 million and that if any person named in the report took legal action against Freeh for writing a false and defamatory report, Penn State would pay all Freeh’s legal costs.

This left Freeh free to write the report Corbett wanted, which would clear his enemies off the field. Frazier got to do another good turn for Freeh, who could help him clear himself and his company from the fed’s looming criminal threat.

With Frazier’s help, Corbett hired the powerful former judge and former FBI director to do a political hit job they deceptively claimed was an “independent investigation.”

It even had the false imprimatur of the FBI. ABC News went so far as to report that Penn State was bringing the FBI in to investigate the Penn State coverup, even though Freeh had not been director of the FBI for a decade.

Everything was now in place to bury Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and all their remaining supporters at Penn State. All that needed to be seen next was what would happen to Frazier and Merck for the deception of the public and some 60,000 deaths.

This death toll certainly was not to be compared to the alleged coverup of one boy Sandusky allegedly abused in the Penn State showers, or that several men of integrity tried to cover it up — an abuse that an actual independent investigation would show never happened.

Would the DOJ indict anyone from Merck, including Frazier, for the crime of a much bigger coverup than anything Paterno and Spanier might have done? (but did not do!)

In our next post, we will learn the answer to that question, which came within four days of Frazier hiring Freeh to do Corbett’s dirty work.

Stay tuned.

The post Unholy Alliance: Corbett, Frazier, and Freeh’s Plot to Take Down Paterno, Spanier and Sandusky – And Help Merck appeared first on Frank Report.

In 2012, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania falsely convicted Jerry Sandusky as part of a panic-frenzy that required the sacrifice of an innocent man.The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conducted itself much like the Province of Massachusetts Bay did in 1692 when they burned witches.

Whether in Salem Town, Ipswich, or Andover or State College, Lockhaven or Bellefonte, it was the same kind of trial.

The events at the Centre County Courthouse were witnessedonce before in the Salem Town Meeting House.

The judges, too, were of the same ilk.

If I were inclined to believe in reincarnation, I would suspect that the chief magistrate of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, William Stoughton, was reborn as Senior Judge of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, John Cleland.

Judge Stoughton knew he had to convict to please the mob.

Soulless, conscienceless men to whom the life of a man or woman, innocent even though they may be, was nothing compared to the expediency of pleasing their superiors, the governor, and the rabble, the maniacal, the puritanically tyrannical of which they were charter members themselves.

They were cut from the same dark cloth. Nothing has changed, but the centuries.

Judge John Cleland knew he had to convict Sandusky to please the NCAA, the media, the mob and his master Governor Corbett.

A Cleland Story Making the Rounds

There is an apocryphal story that might not be true, but illustrates the temperament of that old justice-lacking Judge Cleland.

The story goes that Judge John Cleland admitted he was sorry to have had to dispense with due process, rush the Sandusky trial, then put his fingers on the scales of justice to ensure Sandusky was convicted no matter what.

An attorney asked him, “But you enjoyed it?”

He said, “You act as if just because I am a judge, I don’t have the same feelings deep down that we all have. Enjoy it? My God, how could anyone not enjoy it?”

But we were not talking about men of low morals like Cleland or Stoughton, but distinguished Americans who know a witch trial when they see one.

One of these observant Americans is one of its great editors, Sanford Thatcher. In a distinguished 40-plus-year career, half of which was as the director of Penn State University Press, Thatcher approved for purchase, edited, and released hundreds of important books by some of the top minds in the world. He has a deep connection to Penn State. In his regard for the truth, he wrote to some witch hunters in the Sandusky trial.

He wrote one letter to the prosecutors, Jonelle Eshbach, and her assistant prosecutor Michael Gillum.

Gillum was not officially a prosecutor. He was supposed to be a therapist for accuser Aaron Fisher, known as victim #1.

Bankrupt therapist Mike Gillum

Fisher was the teenager who put the entire travesty in motion.

It was his original lie, encouraged by his mother and enflamed by this so-called therapist, Gillum, who kept trying to persuade Fisher he was a victim who did not know it.

It took two years to pump up Fisher, where he could be a credible liar. And it took two years to incentivize other victims lured by Eschbach’s leaks to the media of falsified grand jury minutes to find other “victims” of Sandusky.

The lure was the promise of millions.

The finishing touch on the Fisher perjury was, of course, attorney Slade McLaughlin, the suicide, who assured Fisher and his mother that they would pocket millions if the 18-year-old testified the way they needed.

McLaughlin ended his life much like he lived it, as a coward.

In addition to writing to Eschbach and Gillum, Thatcher also wrote to Sarah Ganim. She was the cub reporter who received the falsified, leaked grand jury minutes. This young reporter abandoned any pretense of fairness or seeking the truth. She wrote to whip the public into a frenzy. She was good at it too.

Without further ado, here are some excerpts.

Letter from Sanford Thatcher to prosecutor Eshbach and therapist Mike Gillum.

Dear Ms. Eshbach and Mr. Gillum;

… What troubles me about how you acted in bringing Sandusky to trial is that you bothseemed to conclude Sandusky was guilty before you ever got to know the man and then just proceeded to bend all rules of professional conduct to come up with evidence,however conflicted and dubiously arrived at, to prove your assumption.

Mr. Gillum, you surely must have been aware of how repressed memory theory had been thoroughly discredited in your profession by the time you used it to elicit “memories” from ateenager whom you yourself acknowledged to be deeply disturbed—and obviouslymade a whole lot more disturbed by the kind of“therapy”you put him through.

And Ms. Eshbach, you surely know that law enforcement personnel are not supposed to harass potential witnesses into making admissions they clearly are reluctant to make. Why did you leave your professional ethics at the door when dealing with this case? I see nodefensible reason for how you badgered Fisher into telling the story you wanted him totell, not the one he wanted to tell himself…

The “rush to judgment” in which you two played major roles, we may hope, will beproven over time …And I wonder how you two can reconcile your actions with your own consciences, realizing as you must that your actions have ruined the lives of so many people for reasons that may indeed have been groundless?…

It seems pretty clear that, having failed to get any evidence of abuse from a great manySecond Mile alumni, you focused on a handful of the most vulnerable, confused, andeasily manipulated to aid and abet your colleagues at the DA’s office, overzealouspolice, unscrupulous lawyers, and unprofessional psychologists like Mr. Gillum in theprocess of essentially creating evidence to suit the needs of the prosecution inmanufacturing an indictment out thin air and then coaxing a badgered jury into believingthat all these made-up stories reflected reality rather than the pathetic fictions theywere.

It boggles the mind to think that anyone could have taken the testimony of thesemixed up kids as credible given how many times they changed their stories and howoften they contradicted themselves….

Knowing what vast harm you unleashed on your alma mater, how do you sleep at night?… I suspect you know what the real truth is here—and you will have to live with that truth the rest of your lives.

Aaron Fisher’s photographic response to those who claimed he lied about Jerry Sanduysky for the money…

Excerpts from Thatcher’s Letter to Sara Ganim

Dear Ms. Ganim,

….Unlike most people who read your stories about the case andfound themselves swayed by the media frenzy that ensued, I knew all ofthe principals personally.…

I suspectthat I knew all five of these people much better than you did and thus hadmore insights into their personalities, achievements, and motivations thanyou could have had as an undergraduate and later cub reporter for aHarrisburg newspaper. I thus have more reason to regret the severedamage to their lives and reputations that the scandal unleashed than youdo….

You mustsometimes have trouble sleeping at night considering how much damagewas done, especially in the short term, and how many people sufferedgrievously from the stories that got their start with your reporting.

I already suspected there was much more to this story than your reportingrevealed before I was advised to read Mark Pendergrast’s book, The MostHated Man in America (2017), (and) a summary of that book written by UC-Berkeley English professor Frederick Crews. Both of these authors were well acquainted with the controversysurrounding the recovery of memories about childhood abuse and therepudiation of the theory of repressed memory by the mainstreampsychological community, a subject I suspect you knew very little aboutbefore you started writing about Sandusky.

At your then still very youngage I imagine you had never studied the controversy or even heard of it.Thus you would have had little reason to be concerned about having theson of the woman who complained about Sandusky (probably becauseshe needed someone else to blame for her son’s troubles rather than taking responsibility herself) examined by a psychologist who maintainedhis faith in the discredited theory.

But one might have expected you tohave some doubts yourself when you discovered that the prosecutingattorneys and police had interviewed some 600 of Sandusky’s formerSecond Mile clients without having a single one claim that any abuse ofthemhad occurred.

However, Penn State’s overwrought reaction to the unprecedented NCAA sanctions (not justified by any of the NCAA’s bylaws since no Penn State students or athletes were involved in any of the alleged scandal) produced a rich pot of money that brought out the worst in human behavior—greed, lying, rush to judgment, etc.—and, not surprisingly, lured a handful of easily manipulated and troubled people to cash in on the university’s largesse, saying whatever needed to be said toget their cut of the pie.…

Having set all of this moral panic in motion, and earned a nice PulitzerPrize along the way, you then left the scene to pursue your fortuneselsewhere…

I can’t help wondering if you have bothered to follow the Sandusky sagafurther or have just left it behind as a now distant memory. Have you readPendergrast’s book? Are you aware of John Ziegler’s years of researchunearthing mounds of evidence that reveal this whole saga to have been amassive miscarriage of justice?…

As a journalist who must have taken a course or two about journalisticethics at Penn State’s College of Communications, you must have somesense of responsibility for correcting errors and following the truth whereverit leads, so I am curious to know whether you have had any secondthoughts about the Sandusky case or whether you have indeed just buriedit in your past.

(End of excerpt).

It only remains for Frank Report to say Jonelle Eshbach, Mike Gillum and Sarah Ganim chose not to respond to Thatcher, one of America’s most distinguished and educated editors.

They did not respond with “here’s why you are wrong…”Their silence speaks volumes.

If you wish to be on our email list to get information and new stories on the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky and/or add your name to the growing list ofsupporters requesting Penn State Trusteesto examine the evidence, email me at FrankReport76@gmail.com.

Watch the following video to see how the media cherry picked the “facts” they wanted to support their narrative. Thanks to John Ziegler’s reporting, the truth (and lies) have been uncovered. This is an excerpt from Ziegler’s interview with Aaron Fisher’s former neighbor, Josh Fravel.

The post Famous Editor to Sandusky Prosecutor, Quack Therapist and Yellow Journalist: ‘You Must Have Trouble Sleeping at Night!’ appeared first on Frank Report.

Here is another distinguished individual who has studied the Sandusky case and has written to Frank Report to give his opinion: Jerry Sandusky is innocent and deserves a new trial!

He is a senior scientist for Naval Air Systems Commandand anuclear chemist.

ByDr. Gregory Vernon

Senior DOD Scientist (ret)

Naval Air Warfare Center

China Lake, California

I realize that cowardice is the coin of the realm in today’s environment, but sometime, somewhere, someone has to stand up for the truth. Jerry Sandusky’s trial was a trampling of the Constitution of the United States.

His conviction is a story of corruption:Prosecutors, judges, attorneys, the media, quack psychologists, politicians. There was probably more suborned perjury, witness tampering, illegal leaks, and outright lies than any case in US history.

My skepticism about Sandusky’s guilt is based on the lack of physical evidence and the criminal behavior of the prosecutors, especially the creation of at least one fabricated victim.

Hall of Shame Prosecutors:

Sandusky prosecutor Frank ‘the Rat’ Fina

Prosecutors were so dishonest that they invented a stool that did not exist to explain Mike McQueary’s fiction that Sandusky abused a 10 year old boy in a locker room shower. The purpose of the invented stool? So prosecutors could lie to the jury that the 6’1″ Sandusky could rape a 4′ tall boy, while both were standing.

Jerry was convicted of five counts of abusing a child who did not exist.

The fact that the trial judge allowed hearsay testimony is almost prima facie evidence that the judge was, at best, an advocate for the prosecution and, at worst, involved in the hoax up to his neck.

The original witness said he did not see Jerry Sandusky abuse any child, but the judge was uninterested in such things. That the prosecution put another janitor on the stand, is major misconduct.

My only question is what the prosecutor Frank (the rat) Fina had on the janitor Ron Petrovsky to get him to lie under oath.

Schrodinger’s Cats?

In the early days of quantum theory, there were tongue-in-cheek puzzles concerning the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Of course, macroscopic objects cannot occupy the same space as another object, cannot exist in two states simultaneously, and cannot be in a state that violates the laws of physics. However, if you are a Sandusky “victim,” the laws of physics are suspended. If you take the “victim’s” stories literally, there are times when they would be piled like firewood in Jerry’s basem*nt, having a blow j*b from their girlfriend and Jerry Sandusky at the same time, and being in a forbidden space.

The latest example was (victim #5) Michal Kajak’s testimony at Graham Spanier’s trial.

Kajak’s last story is that Sandusky abused him in the Lasch Building in August. This alleged abuse occurred during preseason practice, when Joe Paterno guarded that building 24/7 tighter than Fort Knox. A CIA operative trying to get in would be captured and turned into a tackling dummy.

Nobody asked Kajak how he got into the building. A competent defense attorney would have ripped him apart and revealed that the AOG suborned perjury and the trial judge was an advocate for the prosecution, not a neutral arbiter.

I favor an approach that goes after corruption, witness tampering, and suborned perjury.

As for the accusers, I don’t know of any streetwise kid who wouldn’t liehisass off for a good payoff. When prosecutors give them a license to lie, their stories will get even better.

A Few Other Things to Look into:

The Frazier –Peetz performance for best supporting liars:

There were many entities who wanted Ken Frazier’s head on a platter for reckless homicide for his role in the fraudulent Vioxx data package Merck sent to the FDA, resulting in the prematuredeaths of over 100,000 people.

Frazier was CEO of Merck and a Penn State trustee. At the time, Frazier was leading the Special Investigation Committee for Penn State with Louis Freeh, Merck’s law firm, Pepper Hamilton, was negotiating Merck’s liability with the PA Office of the Attorney General.

So here was Frazier negotiating with the OAG while doing their bidding on the Penn State investigation.

According to the next attorney general, Merck’s payment to PA was a pittance compared to what it should have paid.

Karen Peetz, CEO of PNB, should never have been on the SIC because of PNB’s extensive financial dealings with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

These individual’s performances at the Freeh presser looked really rehearsed. A few months after Freeh released his report, Freeh is chairman of the board of Pepper Hamilton.

Keep the Baldwins off the Road

Around the time of lawyer for Penn State, Cynthia Baldwin “flip,” against her own clients, her daughter was involved in a fatal automobile accident. Within a day of the “flip,” all the articles on the incident mysteriously disappeared.

When Cynthia was censored, she tried to play the “race card.” No luck, but soon after, she hit and killed a person. She got off with a slap on the wrist.

Impossible Case

Finally, my skepticism about Jerry’s sex abuse conviction is supported by the fact that he suffered from a clinically severe case of congenital hypogonadism. He was being treatedfor prostatitis. He was incapable of having sex.

The post Scientist Exposes Misconduct in Jerry Sandusky Wrongful Conviction appeared first on Frank Report.

Board of Trustees to Vote on Borrowing Plan

Penn State will likely become number #1 in one area of college sports this week.

The Board of Trustees is expected to pass a resolution authorizing the university to borrow $700 million to spend on Beaver Stadium renovations. If passed, the resolution will give Penn State the distinction of having the highest debt-to-income ratio of any university among those with major competitive sports teams – even higher than California’s bankrupt athletics.

Penn State’s plans to borrow $700 million for the renovation project, which some say is hodgepodge of egregiously overpriced and motley improvements, will include “upgrades” to the west sideline structure, removal of low-to moderate-priced seating to make room for luxury suites and boxes, and concession and restroom “upgrades.”

Up until now, Penn State’s intercollegiate athletics has been self-supporting.With the new debt, Penn State may have to use tuitions to fund the enormous annual repayment requirement, paid over 30 years.

Big Spenders

Penn State Athletics currently has $250 million of debt paid by athletics revenue. The university backs the debt, guaranteed by tuition revenue. If the athletics department does not generate sufficient capital to pay the debt, taxpayers or students will pay. In 2022-23, Penn State reported $202 million in revenue, which, with its debt of $250 million, is a debt/ revenue ratio of 122%.

That is already higher than most public universities in the Big 10. The average is 98%.

If the board approves the $700 million borrowing plan, Penn State athletics’ debt would jump to $877 million, or 434% of annual revenue, and become by far the highest in the nation.

One trustee is outspoken in his opposition to the debt.

Trustee Barry Fenchak cites several reasons for not supporting the borrowing plan. One is simple:

“We don’t have the cash,” Fenchak said in a post on his website. “…. the athletic department has only a minimum cash balance. They must request the university borrow money for relatively minor projects that our competitors routinely pay with cash from reserves.”

Dubious Practice

The renovation project, for which Penn State will borrow $700 million, strangely and perhaps illegally, went out for bid in January 2024. Penn State administrators reportedly awarded most of the contract for a project that the Board has yet to approve legally.

The Office of Physical Plant website reportedly removed documents related to the Beaver Stadium construction project recently.

Penn State administration and certain board members to cover their lack of transparency have argued that Penn State must borrow the money, and that they have considered other renovation options.

There is no record of Penn State Trustees deliberating alternative plans.

This suggests the fix isin; lucrative contracts have already been promised/awarded to contractors, engineers, architects, planners, designers, retailers, wholesalers, brokers, financiers, bankers, and others. It is the probable reason for the conspiracy of silence by administrators and select finance-driven members of the Penn State board.

Before voting to incur this enormous debt, ethical members of the Board of Trustees should conduct a vigorous conflict of interest investigation. Trustees should examine every contract awarded and to be awarded. Trustees should pay special attention to the consultant’s recommendations and the validity of their so-called feasibility studies.

Trustees should delve into potential connections to administrators and certain board members whoseem to beirrationally pushing this plunge into unsustainable debt based on what appears to be a lot of speculativewhimsy. Frankly, these administrators and trustees are producing disturbingly misleading numbers and using projections basedon rank speculation.

What is worse is thelack oftransparency and their dependence on a know-nothing majority on the board.

Thisis no accident. It might be criminal.

My guess is that a transparent study will show that there are more inflated contracts, handouts, and clever crafting of scope and specs to narrow the bidders and inflate the price on this dubious endeavor than even one of Governor Shapiro’s notorious RFPs—well-known to land just where it will do him the most good.

Luxury Suites to Replace Affordable Seating and Donations Imagined

The last time Penn State upgraded Beaver Stadium was in 2001, adding 12,000 seats.The $700 million project will not add seating, but will focus on increasing revenues with premium amenities.

In the fine print, it appears Penn State does not expect athletics to fully pay the debt after all.The borrowing advocates believe that a better stadium with luxury suites will attract wealthier alumni who will make donations. It is unclear how they have calculated this outside of magical thinking.

The facts point in the opposite direction.

Donations have been dramatically down since 2011, and it has nothing to do with the stadium or the number of luxury seats.

Donations dropped from $50 million annually to $14 million since Penn State’s spectacular disgrace.

Penn State Disgrace

In 2011, Penn State trustees sold the innocent Jerry Sandusky, Graham Spanier, Gary Shultz, and Tim Curley down the river—they threw them under the bus.

Sold short on morality and bought long on people forgetting.

And, of course, kicked the dying man, that king of good ethics, the man who built the reputation of Penn State and prompted more donations than anyone – Joe Paterno – to the curb, and no sooner than he died, spat on his grave and took down his statue.

There is a direct connection to the decline in donations and the betrayal by Penn State trustees of Joe Paterno.

Either way, as Fenchak pointed out, trustees should not depend on donations to pay for their boondoggle. That dried up with the desecration of the man who started the drive to get donations.

Fenchak said, “We don’t have the philanthropic support. Quite frankly, since 2011, donations to Penn State athletics have fallen off a cliff. In 2022, Penn State athletics was able to gather only $14.2 million in donations while Ohio State netted $55 million and the University of Alabama $115 million.

Link to Fenchak’s Debt Ratio tracking spreadsheet

For those who do not know, 2011 was the year when Penn State ignominiously fired Joe Paterno and, in doing so, destroyed any semblance of the presumption of innocence for Jerry Sandusky, who is now 80, and in his 12th year of 30-60 year prison sentence.

Penn State Chairman Matt Schuyler seeks big debt and no debate.Penn State Board of Trustees Chairman Matt Schuyler appears oblivious to the connection between the disgrace of putting innocent men in prison or dishonoring their memories, and falling donations.

And no one believes in the law of karma. That what goes around comes around; that the sins you commit two by two, you pay for one by one.

It is not that there is no support for renovating the stadium. Most trustees agree that Beaver Stadium needs renovations and that football games have an economic impact in the area. What has not been debated by this stealth borrowing operation is how much money should it cost to reach specific goals?

Fenchak’s study of debt ratio

The Finance, Business, and Capital Planning Committee will meet on Tuesday, May 21st, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. EDT. They do not want the public to tune in. But they are required to make the meetings available to the public.If no technical difficulties ensue, the public can watch live via Zoom.

Tuesday, May 21, 2024 BOT Executive Session and BOT/FBCP Public Meeting

If you wish to be on our email list to get information and new stories on the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky and/or add your name to the growing list of supporters requesting Penn State Trustees to examine the evidence, email me at FrankReport76@gmail.com.

The post Penn State Athletics to Lead Nation in Debt With $700M Borrowing Plan, as Donations Fallout From Penn State Betrayal of Paterno Continues appeared first on Frank Report.

People often say Jerry Sandusky must be guilty, because there were so many accusers.

Indeed, eight men testified he abused them when they were underage – though they said nothing of it at the time.

The stories of the Sandusky accusers were so wild that someone should have questioned them aggressively, but Sandusky’s defense attorney did nothing right. Not once. Not ever. If he wasn’t playing for the other side, he was the most ineffective and incompetent trial attorney ever to enter a courtroom.

Now you say the system can never get it that wrong – even if Sandusky had an incompetent lawyer. Not with the media watching, with trained investigators from the state police, a white-haired, black-robed judge above bias, prosecutors charged with seeking justice, not convictions, and 12 members of a jury of his peers.

The McMartin Case

I recall the McMartin prosecution. The media, investigators, and prosecutors were corrupt, andthe judge was biased, but the jury got it mostly right.

Much like the Sandusky case, which started with the mother of truth-challenged teenager Aaron Fisher, the McMartin case began about 26 years earlier with the mother of a boy who attended the McMartin Day Care.

It was 1983. Judy Johnson, the mother, told Manhattan Beach, California, Police Detective Jane Hoag that Ray Buckey, the 25-year-old son of the administrator of the daycare, wearing a cape and a Santa Claus costume, had sodomized her son, Mitchell, while sticking the boy’s head in a toilet.

Johnson also said Ray could fly in the air like the warlocks of old.

Johnson also reported Ray’s mother, Peggy Buckey, had taken Mitchell to church, where the boy saw a baby beheaded. Peggy forced Mitchell to drink the dead baby’s blood and stick his finger in the anus of a goat.

Johnson said other McMartin teachers practiced bestial*ty, cut up live rabbits, and placed “some sort of star” on her son’s bottom.

The boy himself later told investigators that he was buried alive in a coffin without holes, and that a lion who played with an elephant hurt him. He was unable to identify Ray Buckey from pictures shown to him.

Sounds legit.

The police searched Buckey’s home, confiscating a graduation robe, a rubber duck, a Teddy bear, and Playboy magazines.

Police questioned Buckey. While Detective Hoag had some doubts about Buckey’s ability to fly, she desperately wanted to believe Buckey had sodomized the lad. It would make her career, and there would probably be a movie with a beautiful movie star playing her.

Detective Hoag arrested Buckey on September 7, 1983.

The next day, based on the good word of Judy Johnson and Detective Hoag, Manhattan Beach Police Chief Harry Kuhlmeyer sent a form letter to about 200 sets of unsuspecting parents of current and former students at the McMartin school. He told them that Ray Buckey might have done some terrible things to their children, asking the parents to question their children, and even sent them a prestamped addressed envelope for the soon-to-be-shocked parents to reply.

The text of the letter read:

September 8, 1983

Dear Parent:

…Please question your child to see if he or she has been a witness to any crime or if he or she has been a victim. Our investigation indicates that possible criminal acts include: oral sex, fondling of genitals, buttock or chest area, and sodomy, possibly committed under the pretense of “taking the child’s temperature.” Also photos may have been taken of children without their clothing. Any information from your child regarding having ever observed Ray Buckey to leave a classroom alone with a child during any nap period, or if they have ever observed Ray Buckey tie up a child, is important.

Please complete the enclosed information form and return it to this Department in the enclosed stamped return envelope as soon as possible. We will contact you if circ*mstances dictate same.

We ask you to please keep this investigation strictly confidential because of the nature of the charges and the highly emotional effect it could have on our community. Please do not discuss this investigation with anyone outside your immediate family.”

Would you believe that despite the chief’s well-thought-out entreaty for 200 sets of parents, parents reacted with panic and hysteria?

It was only a short time before the media reported the investigation.

The District Attorney handed the investigation to social worker Kee MacFarlane, who headed the Children’s Institute International (CII), an agency that made its income from identifying and treating abused children. Police directed anxious parents to take their children to CII for interviews.

At first, children denied abuse. But MacFarlane had developed an interviewing technique that elicited admissions from children who otherwise would not have said Buckey had abused them. During the interviews, which were videotaped, MacFarlane and her associates asked children questions such as “Can you remember the naked pictures?” “Did he touch you on the bottom?”

To help children remember, MacFarlane used anatomically correct dolls and puppets, such as Mr. Alligator, Mr. Snake, Detective Dog, and Mr. Sparky.

She knew how to draw children out when she told them they were smart if they answered yes to specific questions. She expressed disapproval when they failed to disclose abuse.

MacFarlane sometimes spoke in the voice of Mr. Detective Dog and sometimes in the voice of Mr. Pac-Man. When a child said something about abuse, touching, or naked games, she praised him. When the child said nothing had happened, she rephrased the question and asked again or told the child about other children who had already said the badthings had happened to them.

All told, clever MacFarlane uncovered more than 300 children she claimed were abused. By the time of the trial, 11 children testified (more on the trial later).

The prosecutors in the Sandusky case did not send form letters. With only the notorious liar Aaron Fisher as a victim for two years, PA State Police went to hundreds of potential victims who knew Sandusky or attended one of his Second Mile charity camps. They came up empty-handed after speaking to hundreds of young men, who all said Sandusky never abused them.

The McMartin case featured accusers who were still children when they testified. History has proven that the notorious Kee MacFarlane manipulated them into false memories.

In the Sandusky case, the accusers were all adults and were incentivized to lie by the lure of millions, which everyone did get from Penn State. The PA State Police used highly suggestive and sometimes intimidating tactics to get accusers.

There were even two quacks of the Kee MacFarlane school of bogus therapy. Mike Gillum, the bankrupt therapist in need of money, coached Aaron Fisher into lying about Sandusky abusing him and later the notorious Brett Swisher Houtz. And, of course, there was quack therapist Cynthia MacNab, who coached most Sandusky accusers, even in group sessions, where she guided the accusers to compare notes and embellish their stories of abuse. By being with a therapist, she gave them cover under the bullsh*t notion that the reason they had at first said Sandusky did not abuse them was because they had repressed memories.

It Took Hard Work By a Lot of People to Wrongfully Convict Sandusky

Later, PA prosecutors took a page from McMartin and advertised for victims, which civil lawyers had done for some time in the Sandusky case. It took three years, a lot of advertising, interviews, police threats, and lawyers’ offers of millions to round up eight accusers to perjure themselves on the witness stand about Jerry Sandusky.

And it took two therapists to keep the eight liars on track. They made up some incredible stories of abuse that grew wilder with each retelling. I am a little surprised that one of them didn’t see Sandusky flying through the air or beheading babies, then forcing them to drink the blood.

In our next post comparing the McMartin and Sandusky cases, we will look at the stories of the accusers – the children in McMartin and the men who pretended to be children in the Sandusky case – and how the prosecutors suborned perjury in both.

If you wish to be on our email list to get information and new stories on the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky and/or add your name to the growing list of supporters requesting Penn State Trustees to examine the evidence, email me at FrankReport76@gmail.com.

The post McMartin Case Resembles Sandusky Case in Many Eerie Ways (Part 1) appeared first on Frank Report.

Discrepancies in McQueary’s Testimony

Verifying the Date

After interviewing Sandusky in prison, I called Allan Myers’ school. I talked to an administrator, who confirmed the school was in session on February 9, 2001.

I didn’t believe everything Jerry Sandusky said then, and I thought he must be guilty of something. But okay, the date is consistent with what Jerry’s telling me. He said it can’t be February 9 because he knows he spent all day with Allan Myers driving across Pennsylvania.

There were many other data points that I had to go to.

McQueary consistently testified that the night of this so-called shower incident—a Friday—was extremely quiet on campus.The prosecution used “quiet campus” to their advantage with the first date MacQueary gave before the grand jury, when they thought the incident occurred on March 1, 2002.

Activity on Campus Contradicts McQueary

Friday, March 1, 2002, was the first night of spring break. The prosecutors implied Jerry Sandusky somehow had this expectation of privacy, so he could have the shower at the Lasch Building all to himself to rape young boys.

The March 1, 2002, date worked well for the prosecution, but they had to change it to February 9, 2001, after finding out McQueary met with Paterno on February 10.

However, February 9 does not work well for McQueary’s testimony that the campus was quiet.February 9, 2001, might’ve been the busiest night on campus of the entire year. Right across the street that night was a sold-out rock concert.

More Evidence Contradicting Quiet Campus Claim

A sold-out rock concert across the street shows thelevel of activity, traffic, and parking available. Former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz has told me that it would’ve been impossible for Mike to find parking at the Lasch building under those circ*mstances.

But there is more. That night, February 9,precisely the time this episode allegedly occurred, there was a hockey game in the Lasch building itself.So you have a sold-out rock concert across the street and a hockey game in the same building.There is zero chance that this was a quiet night on campus, as McQueary testified. It was precisely the opposite.

There’s a good chance that on February 9, 2001, Mike McQueary read in the local paper that Kenny Jackson had just left the Penn State football coaching staff to take a job with the Pittsburgh Steelers, which means the wide receivers coaching position has just opened up.

McQueary’s Motives Questioned

That’s the job Mike wanted. That’s the job Mike would ultimately get three years later.

By the way, this blows apart the entire Penn State cover-up theory. To believe that Joe Paterno and other top administrators covered up Sandusky’s abuse of a boy, we must think Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in the showers at Penn State, and that there’s a job opening at Penn State. McQueary goes to Joe Paterno, who wants to cover up Sandusky’s abuse, but does not give McQueary the job!

If Paterno had wanted to cover up Sandusky’s abuse, wouldn’t he more likely say, “Mike, okay, thank you much for this information. By the way, you’ve been doing a hell of a job for us. Congratulations. You’re the new wide receivers coach.”

But McQueary didn’t get the job.

Sue Paterno’s Three-Minute Meeting Account

According to Sue Paterno, Joe’s widow, the February 10, 2001 meeting between McQueary and Paterno lasted three minutes.

Sue Paterno is integral in this case. She has a legendary memory, and she was there.

There’s no way McQueary told Joe Paterno in three minutes that he saw Jerry Sandusky raping a boy. It’s impossible. It was the job opening that provoked the meeting with Paterno. But it would not take Paterno more than three minutes to tell McQueary he was not qualified for the job.

The Correct Date

So, we have March 1, 2002, the original wrong prosecution date. That was a Friday. The second date used at trial, February 9, 2001, is also a Friday.The correct date is Friday, December 29, 2000.

The first reason December 29 qualifies is that it is the quietest night you’ll ever find at Penn State’s campus. It’s between Christmas and New Year’s, and no one is on campus. This supports McQueary’s testimony that it was quiet.The timing of this is essential.McQueary says the incident happened somewhere around nine o’clock.

Well, it’s a hell of a coincidence that the college football games were on television all that day. Around that time of night would be the perfect time for McQueary to say, “I’m bored. I’ve been watching college football all day.” Penn State was not in a bowl game that year, which was rare. In fact, Penn State sucked that year. Ironically enough, partially because Jerry Sandusky had retired the previous year. McQueary is doing nothing. He’s bored. He decides to go to the Lasch Building, and I believe that while doing whatever he thought he would do, pick up some tapes, shoes, whatever, killing time, he hears the shower and what he now describes as slapping noises. I think he expected to see a Penn State assistant coach with a female engaged in some sexual activity. Then, when he turns the corner, looks in the mirror, and sees Sandusky goofing around with a kid, he is shocked.

No Urgency in McQueary’s Report

I have no problem with the fact that he was made uncomfortable, but he did not see a rape or any sexual abuse. What he saw was Sandusky and Allan Myers taking a shower after a workout, following a cross-state trek that began in Washington, Pennsylvania, where Sandusky had done a book signing, ironically enough for his book called Touched.

That book was just coming out at that time. This was one of the first, if not the first, events Sandusky did for that book. So, consistent with what Jerry had told me in prison, he spent all day with Allan Myers from Washington, Pennsylvania, Jerry’s hometown.

Then, after the book signing, he drives back to State College.

Interview with Sandusky’s College Roommate

I had an interview with Sandusky’s college roommate. I heard he had spoken to Jerry on that trip. He called him because Sandusky was on the verge of being hired as Virginia’s head football coach, and Jerry’s college roommate had a son at the University of Virginia then.

While traveling from Washington, PA, to State College, Jerry converses with his college roommate on his cell phone. The former roommate verified Jerry’s story.

Verification of Sandusky’s Timeline

I believe Sandusky continued to State College. He and Allan worked out in the gym, and then they took a shower in the public shower. That’s what Mike McQueary witnessed in the Lasch Building.

Now, the Virginia head coaching job becomes vital in dating the incident because it’s the following day, December 30, 2000, that Sandusky learns he does not get the job. He knows this by watching ESPN while at one of his book signings in State College.

Local Newspaper Confirmation

How do we know this? An article in the local newspaper reports this on December 31, 2000. This goes back to my interview with Sandusky. When Sandusky told me he knew it wasn’t February 9, he kept telling me that he connected the date with the debut of his book and not getting the job in Virginia.

You cannot have a date that combines all these factors more perfectly than December 29, a Friday, and an incredibly quiet on campus. It’s the day of his first book signing in Washington, PA.

It’s the day before he finds out he does not get the Virginia head coaching job.

Connecting the Dots

When you combine all the factors, it’s clear that McQueary’s date is December 29, 2000, and there’s a six-week gap between that date and when McQueary sees Paterno.I believe he went to Paterno not to report Sandusky’s abuse but because of the job opening created when Kenny Jackson left Penn State to go to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

December 29 is consistent with Sandusky’s recollection, consistent with McQueary’s description of the night, consistent with Sandusky’s college roommate telling me what happened on the night of December 29, and consistent with the idea that Mike McQueary didn’t see a rape. He saw Sandusky with a boy in the shower. The six week gap proves there was no urgency.

Lying for Self-Interest

Nothing provoked McQueary to make any official report about Sandusky until the Kenny Jackson job opened up. That’s when he saw his opportunity to see Joe Paterno, which laid the foundation for the injustice that would happen ten years later.

I think McQueary started lying after Joe Paterno died, because he knew no one could call him out on it. So he started saying whatever fit his narrative to support his lawsuit against Penn State as a whistleblower.His testimony changes once Paterno dies.

I believe prosecutors manipulated McQueary’s memory. But I also think he worked out of self-interest. I’m not defending McQueary. He’s divorced now. His wife is pretty much on record saying he’s a lying sack of crap. I have no problem calling Mike McQueary a liar. This began with prosecutors manipulating McQueary and then it evolved into his lying.

Consequences of Knowing the Wrong Date

If we had known in November of 2011, when the Attorney General indicted Sandusky, that McQueary got the date, the month and the year wrong, which we now know with certainty, because the prosecution admitted that, the whole case is different, because then everyone pumps the brakes. Joe Paterno doesn’t get fired. Graham Spanier doesn’t get fired, and the case against Curley and Schultz probably never gets prosecuted, because people would say, “Whoa, whoa, wait, wait a minute. We’re going to put everything on Mike McQueary, who didn’t even get the date, the month, or the year, correct?”

That’s the first way this would’ve been dramatically altered.

The second way is that Sandusky knew the date was wrong, not just the first date, but also the second date. He must have told his attorney, Joe Amendola, that the dates were wrong. So, how do you not throw your entire defense into that?

Case Falls Apart with Wrong Date

If the second date is also wrong, the case is over.

If Joe Amendola had figured out that February 9 was also wrong, the jury would have acquitted Jerry Sandusky because everything else would have fallen apart from that standpoint.

The short answer is that if we had known immediately that McQueary got the first date wrong, Joe Paterno and the administrators would have been saved. Jerry Sandusky would have been saved if they defense had figured out that McQueary got the date wrong the second time.

If you wish to be on our email list to get information and new stories on the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky and/or add your name to the growing list of supporters requesting Penn State Trustees to examine the evidence, email me at FrankReport76@gmail.com.

The post John Ziegler on McQueary’s Mistake: The Date That Could Free Sandusky appeared first on Frank Report.

Jerry Sandusky, 80, is a victim of Pennsylvania’s justice system. People think Sandusky must be guilty, because there were ten alleged “victims” of underage sexual abuse. Of the 10, only eight appeared at trial. All were over the age of 18 by the time they testified. Six were over 21. None ever reported abuse when it allegedly occurred.

Due Process

Judge Cleland decided Sandusky did not have the right to confront two of the “victims.” The jury did not know their names. Even the judge did not know their names. They were mystery victims.

One of these absent victims never existed. The other hid during the trial so the defense would not call him, and simultaneously he would not lose his chance of making millions from Penn State. He hid because he had told police, newspapers, and through a sworn affidavit that Sandusky had never abused him. Then he met with a civil lawyer, Andrew Shubin, who persuaded him he was throwing away millions. So he hid. And he collected $6.9 million, which he split with his lawyer. “Victim” #2 is is Allan Myers.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

The prosecutor, Joe McGettigan, lied to the jury when he said the identity of “Victim #2” (Myers) was only known to God – unless, of course, McGettigan thought he was God. He played God over the lives of several people. From my perspective, McGettigan acted more like a devil.

Origins of the Accusation

McGettigan came late to the lynching of Jerry Sandusky.

The case began with a 15-year-old boy lying to his mother. The lad probably did not understand the enormity of his lie, or the consequences. He had lied many times to his mother and got away with it. He did not intend this lie to destroy so many lives, including his own.

He just wanted to spend the night with a friend, smoke marijuana, try to get a teenage girl for sex and, in the absence of a girl, watch p*rn – all things he could not do at Sandusky’s home. To get out of going to Sandusky’s, where his mentor and benefactor would pressure him to honor a commitment he made to help with Sandusky’s charity The Second Mile, and worse, go to church on Sunday, he told his mother that Sandusky made him feel uncomfortable.

He implied that the gregarious Sandusky, who hugged, patted and sometimes embraced neglected and forlorn children – as Fisher had been – had a “creepy” possibly sexual overtone.

This was the boy who was so affection starved just a few years earlier that he would run and jump in Jerry’s lap and cling to him – possibly because the only men his mother ever brought to the house abused him.

This was the boy who wore tatters, whose clothes were rags and ill-fitting. Sandusky, out of mercy, provided him with decent clothes to go to church. And gave him sneakers from the rich supply Nike provided Sandusky as promotional wares. He once gave him a gift of some used golf clubs – a donation from the Second Mile – because Fisher had helped with a golf tournament for the Second Mile.

These gifts were later used against Sandusky, as if it were a sinister ploy to groom Aaron Fisher.

Yes, Sandusky gave him gifts. The boy lamented once that he had no computer. Everyone else in school had a computer, but him. There was a used computer that someone had donated to The Second Mile, and Sandusky gave it to the boy in return for some little service he did helping Sandusky at the charity.

The Lie

In November 2008, Fisher was no longer interested in helping Sandusky help other boys, as he had once been helped. He thought a little lie would work to get his planned evening of fun with his friend. He did not understand that his lie would unleash terrible forces that would bring together unbelievably cruel and selfish people to lie together, not always knowing the others were lying, but always knowing they, themselves, were lying.

An Avalanche of Lies

All eight accusers who testified lied—everyone. Here are the pictures, so you can see the face of lies.

Eight men took the opportunity to make up stories about Jerry Sandusky, knowing their fortunes were assured. Everyone knew before they told their lies on the witness stand that Penn State would deliver millions unto them. All they had to do was lie about Sandusky. They knew they’d be believed. They were encouraged by police and prosecutors driven by ambition, natural cruelty, and an absence of justice in their hearts, and by civil lawyers whose scruples were as low as their clients.

Some accusers justified their lying by the convenient thought that the other accusers were possibly not lying. Since Sandusky is guilty of abusing the others, their reasoning went, they might just as well cash in with a million dollar lie. After all, Penn State could afford it.

Everyone profited off of one innocent man, Jerry Sandusky, who dedicated his time to helping troubled youth. Sandusky cared about helping teens get on the right path, and some of them did.

Among the boys he tried to help were 15-year-old Aaron Fisher. He started the snowball rolling. A lie can be like a snowball. Be careful where you throw it.One little lie told by one little, almost pathological liar who lied to his mother, and everyone was swept away – including he – in an avalanche.

Aaron Fisher, now 30, and in trouble again and again – (arrested, stabbed, caught drunk driving, involved in domestics, exposed for vandalizing cars, etc.) for the fates are catching up with him.

He was born under a bad star. Or had the devil’s curse, or was under some baneful witch’s spell, for he had the inordinately wicked luck to be the start of something colossally unjust.

And while he had his instant fix – his quick reward – yes, he got $7.5 million – split with his attorney – but that money is gone or almost gone – and he must now rue the barren harvest he has sown.

His attorney already faced his day of reckoning. The man who egged him on and showed the lad and his mother the green pathway, not caring much if it was truth or fiction, surrendered his life by committing suicide two years ago.

In our next post, we will show the boy who lied and how he told his lie that destroyed so many and helped none. All the accusers that followed merely riffed off his lie. And Joe McGettigan, that devil of a prosecutor, along with the deceitful prosecutors, Frank Fina and Jonelle Eschbach, were there to help coach them every inch of the way.

The post Misled Justice: How Sandusky Became a Scapegoat in a Flawed System (part 1) appeared first on Frank Report.

Jerry Sandusky is an innocent man railroaded into prison by a remarkable combination of perjury, greed, and the cowardice of the Board of Trustees of that institute of “higher” learning, Penn State. Last week, I, along with more than sixty others, sent a letter to Penn State Trustees asking the present board to review the evidence of Sandusky’s innocence. Two blockheads pulled a parliamentary move to stop the other trustees from considering the solid proof we have to offer.

One of the signers of the letter is the distinguished and famous editor Sanford Thatcher, who was the director of the Penn State University Press for 20 years. He recently shared a letter with Frank Report that he sent to two Penn State Trustees – Jay Paterno and Matt McGloin. Perhaps they will take an interest in the truth at hand.

By Sanford Thatcher

I was made an honorary alumnus when I retired from Penn State in 2009 after twenty years as director of Penn State University Press, but that status does not come with the privilege of voting in the election of alumni trustees. I would have voted for you had that privilege been granted to me. (By the way, I grew up in Forty Fort and went to Wyoming Seminary in Kingston, both suburbs of Wilkes-Barre where my father chaired the History Department at Wilkes College, and my classmate at Princeton, Cosmo Iacavazzi was a star at Scranton Central and became an All-American fullback in college, leading the team to an undefeated season in 1964.)

Penn State is a great university, but that greatness was grievously compromised by what the University did to contribute to the prosecution and conviction of Jerry Sandusky. The moral panic that accusations against Sandusky set off both locally and nationally led to precipitous and rash actions by the board, under the glare of media, and allowed the NCAA to impose sanctions that its own bylaws did not permit it to levy, many of which were later reversed, such as the reduction in the number of scholarships that could be offered to football players.

The University’s offering of millions of dollars to men who would come forward to identify themselves as victims was the height of stupidity because, of course, there were plenty of “victims” to be found, and greedy lawyers to help them, when large sums of money were being offered without any material evidence they could provide of having been victims or any real proof of victimhood, just their testimony about suddenly and conveniently having recovered memories with the coaching and assistance of unscrupulous psychologists and police investigators who were all too happy to suggest what those memories might be like. The entire case against Sandusky was built on a house of cards, relying on repressed memory theory that had long since been discredited by the experts in rthe field.

The real victims here—besides those men who were convinced they had been abused when they hadn’t (compared with the plaintiffs who just wanted to cash in on the easy money being offered) —were, most notably Coach Joe Paterno, who was unceremoniously fired with no investigation having been conducted, and those people whose lives were forever cast into a dark shadow by the unfounded accusations—not just Sandusky, but Spanier, Curley, and Schultz, all honorable men and fellow administrators with whom I was privileged to serve.

The attempt by the board to provide ex post facto justification for its decisions through the report commissioned from Judge Louis Freeh only added insult to injury as its main claim was that a coverup was conducted to spare the football program from shame by association since a “culture of reverence” for the program was widespread in the University and State College community—as though Freeh could somehow read the minds of us employees and residents of the town. Did he not realize how ludicrous it was to accuse people like me of putting being a football fan above concern for abused children? At any rate, the flimsiness of the report was soon exposed by former US attorney general Richard Thornburgh, as noted here: https://onwardstate.com/2013/03/15/dick-thornburgh-releases-statement-on-freeh-and-paterno-reports/

Frank Parlato, an intrepid investigator of the truth about the Sandusky case, recently mailed a letter to the board signed by me and over 60 others who know a lot about the case as it has played out over the years. We agree with him that the board has at least a moral obligation to make a real effort at recovering the truth from the mountains of misinformation that have poisoned the public mind. Penn State can never be considered a great university again if its board continues to hide their heads in the sand and let the prevailing narrative remain unchallenged. Unfortunately, it appears from this report by Parlato that some members of the board are going out of their way to prevent the question from ever being confronted and placed on the board’s agenda.

https://frankreport.com/2024/05/04/penn-state-trustee-mary-lee-schneider-works-to-keep-evidence-of-sanduskys-innocence-suppressed-at-board-meeting/

I hope you and your two new fellow football alumni trustees will lead the way to counter this shortsighted strategy. Please share this letter with them. I hope all of you, if you have not yet read the definitive book on the Sandusky case, will inform yourselves and be better prepared to address the issues when they finally are addressed by the board:https://www.sunburypress.com/blogs/blog/mark-pendergrasts-the-most-hated-man-in-america-repeats-as-the-sunbury-press-bestseller-for-february

If you wish to be on our email list to get information and notice of new stories on the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky, email me at FrankParlato@gmail.com.

The post Legendary Editor Calls Upon Penn State Trustees to Review Evidence of Sandusky’s Innocence appeared first on Frank Report.

Frank Parlato appeared on 98.7 The Fox radio show, with hosts Scott Geesey and Jeff Byers on May 7, 2024. The interview featured an in-your-face Parlato chastising the accusers of Jerry Sandusky and two Penn State Board of Trustees for refusing to even look at the evidence of Sandusky’s innocence.

To hear the interview http://987thefox.com/an-update-on-the-sandusky-saga-with-frank-parlato/

Jeff Byers:

We are joined via the phone line by Frank Parlato, frankreport.com. And, Frank, first of all, thank you once again for taking the time this morning. We appreciate it.

Frank Parlato:

It’s my great pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Jeff Byers:

Frank, there’s a bunch of different things I want to touch on. Just in case somebody is tuning in for the first time, doesn’t know anything about you, just give a little bit of your background, and then I want to share what I think is an amusing story on some of your reporting, which falls in line with what some folks were saying about John Ziegler. And it falls well short of what I think the intention is of the writer, but just give us a little bit of your background here and, again, maybe touch on how you got involved in investigating this Jerry Sandusky saga.

Frank Parlato:

Well, I’ve observed in life that the voice of the majority, particularly with the media, is often wrong. In fact, maybe that’s why we live in such a chaotic world is that the majority echoes each other’s chorus. And so I got into trying to develop thoughts, stories, and ideas that I thought the mainstream media was missing. I’ve had a little success at it over the years, and I publish a number of websites, including the Frank Report, which is a popular website that is a media-recognized platform by Google and others.

And a few months back, I ran into the bizarre and preposterous notion provided to me by an old college professor by the name of Frederick Crews, that Jerry Sandusky was not, as every one of the media and most of the nation believe, guilty. And I began to investigate this preposterous notion that Jerry Sandusky was indeed not guilty, and what I found, to my delight and surprise and also chagrin, because, once again, the media got it wrong,

Jerry Sandusky is indeed innocent. Not only did the media get it wrong, but the courts got it wrong, and that was deliberate. And the simple story was that eight perjurers, maybe nine if you count Mike McQueary, came to court and lied and made a lot of money by condemning an innocent man.

Jeff Byers:

Now, I saw somebody, and I think it was an anonymous poster again, who’s like, “Well, here we go again. All these people are just trying to cover up to protect Penn State football.” Why would you do that?” Your association, Frank, with Penn State football is, again, what?

Frank Parlato:

I have no association. I’ve never seen a Penn State football game. I have a rough idea that there are 11 or 12 men on each side that chase around a pigskin.

Jeff Byers:

Yeah, and John Ziegler, let the record show again, had zero association with Penn State. Why these people, these two individuals in particular, Frank Parlato and John Ziegler, who have zero association with Penn State football, would work to protect Penn State football is … I’ve just never seen anybody explain why that could possibly be. So, it’s just absurd at face value, but it still gets peddled out there, and there’s a lot of stuff that gets peddled out there that, again, makes no sense, including a lot of stuff about this case.

That being said, Frank, where are we at now? And then, I want to go to what happened with the Penn State Board of Trustees meeting on Friday, and I want to play devil’s advocate a little bit there with you.

But where are we at right now to get the right people to hear and understand that Jerry Sandusky is, in fact, an innocent man?

Frank Parlato:

The progress is ongoing, and the most important thing was to try to reduce a mountain of injustice into a digestible form where anyone with an IQ of even 40 could see that Jerry Sandusky is innocent, that he was railroaded by a combination of liars and ambitious people, people who were reckless of the truth, and it was not a concerted type of conspiracy. It was a bunch of people who each had their own agenda, money, or name, or fame, or prosecutors who wanted to have a notch on their belt, a famous big case.

And each of them combined and created a travesty of justice. And now, people 12 years later can understand this, as it’s all put into perspective. Sometimes, time is needed with these great injustices. It took, I think, about 300 years for the state of Massachusetts to finally apologize for burning witches, and I hope we can do this a little quicker this time.

Jeff Byers:

It would be nice. As far as the latest developments in the case, do you want to update us on what happened here with Aaron Fisher and where we’re at with his role, which was pretty integral in the case against Sandusky?

Frank Parlato:

Aaron Fisher was, in a way, the father of this case. His lies created the opportunity for another group of liars to all make millions of dollars. Curiously, most of them have squandered their money. I think Collodi said, “Stolen fruit never fructifies.”

And I think it’s true in this case that these men have wrecks of a life. They have ruined themselves. One could argue they were losers, reprobates, and degraded people before they came and told their lies, but time has done nothing to improve their character. And in fact, putting an innocent man in prison, such as they have done, has only created greater catastrophes in their life.

Aaron Fisher, for example, the father of the Sandusky case, a teenage boy who didn’t want to fulfill his obligations to the Second Mile, made some excuses.

He never thought his mother, and his quack therapist, would turn this into a monstrosity.

He recently was stabbed. He just got arrested for drunk driving. He leaves his mother dead broke, living on a hill. I think he’s probably squandered his money.

The accusers are a group of reprobates who made millions for lying about Jerry Sandusky, a completely innocent man.

Jeff Byers:

Yeah. Honestly, as I read through some stories about these individuals.

While I agree, the reprobates were a big part of a miscarriage of justice against Jerry Sandusky, I, honest to God, cannot help but feel badly for them.

I can’t imagine living the lives they’re leading. I mean, it is a tragedy. It really is. We’re all given that gift of one opportunity here, and to see how most of these guys spend their time, including Allan Myers. And Frank, I have been saying from the first time that John Ziegler and I talked about how to try to get this injustice rectified.

I really thought Allan Myers was going to be the key, and that this would eat him up so much inside, because I believe he knows what a good person Jerry Sandusky is, how much good he has done, and that this is, in fact, a miscarriage of justice.

But in talking with you and a few other folks, it sounds like Allan is at a point where he is not coherent, and I am not saying that lightly.

Frank Parlato:

I think if you lined up all the bottles of alcohol that Allan Myers has consumed to try to drown out his guilt for betraying a man who did nothing but help him, I think it would line up from Penn State all the way to California. And this man has tried to escape the truth. I don’t know if he can ever recover. I think he’d have to sober up for a while.

All these accusers are either drinking, taking drugs, trying to forget through some sort of deviancy, or gambling their money away because “stolen fruit never fructifies.” It never grows sweet. And you’re going to have all this stolen fruit, but it’s not going to feed you well. That’s the case here.

Jeff Byers:

Frank, to those that would say, “Listen, Frank, yes, they’ve turned to all these vices because of what Jerry Sandusky did to them. Jerry ruined their lives, and that’s why they’re on the path they’re on.” You would say what?

Frank Parlato:

I would say $110 million couldn’t cure them? Each of these scoundrels got millions of dollars. They had all the therapy in the world, quack therapy. And if they were really victims, they would do something to help other victims. They could heal themselves. Victims of abuse can be healed with the effort to come forward bravely and tell their story. But what these men did to themselves is mark themselves with the badge of permanent cowardice, and they have only one chance to remedy themselves.

I’ve asked them to debate, and I’ve asked them to debate on your show. Not one of these cowardly dogs has come forward.

But there is a salvation for them, and that is to confess what they have done. They’ve put an innocent man in prison, and the only salvation, the only hope they’ll ever have for happiness in life, is to confess what they’ve done. They lied to put a man in prison. They knew they lied, and they went in under the guidance of the suborners of perjury, the prosecutors. They testified Jerry abused him when he did not. They know it, and their conscience knows it.

Jeff Byers:

Frank, what is the next step in the process here in the attempt to get Jerry Sandusky free and to get, again, what I full-heartedly believe is the truth, out there?

Frank Parlato:

Well, let me ask you a question, Jeff, if I may. We put out an offer a few weeks ago. You were gracious enough to even provide your own phone number, your cell phone number, to allow people that I challenged to debate: all the accusers, the prosecutors, the judge, all these civil lawyers. I was just wondering if anyone accepted my offer to debate. Did anybody call you?

Jeff Byers:

None of the accusers, none of the lawyers did. We had the one individual who did reach out to me and said that he knows that Jerry Sandusky was involved. But then I’ve read and watched a couple of interviews that he’s conducted and by his own admission, he never actually saw Jerry Sandusky abuse anybody, and Jerry never abused him, even though he was around. This individual was around other folks who, I think, did horrible things to him.

Frank Parlato:

Well, yes, we’re referring to Greg Bucceroni. I interviewed Greg at length because if he had some information about Jerry that would point towards something that I didn’t think was the case, I wanted to know it. I’m interested in the truth. After an extensive video-recorded interview with Bucceroni, I determined and he admitted, Jerry Sandusky never abused him, never even asked to abuse him, never even tried to abuse him. He had no contact whatsoever with Sandusky, other than he met him once at a Second Mile function. And the whole claim of Jerry being connected was that apparently, at one of these Second Mile charity functions, there was a man by the name of Eddie Savitz there who happened to know Bucceroni.

Jeff Byers:

When I read through what Bucceroni told me that he knew that Sandusky was involved with pedophilia, and again, I watched a few interviews with him. Even in reading through what he wrote to me, it’s like, well… and I don’t know. Frank, I can see why he thinks he knows that. I cannot imagine, because I think he went through hell as a kid. I mean, we have got to end pedophilia. We have to do a better job. And I think we are. And I think, fortunately, I guess maybe one of the good things to come out of the Sandusky case is that we have better protocols in place, better awareness of what to look for in real pedophiles. And ironically, if you do that comparison of, all right, this is what pedophiles do and what Jerry Sandusky did, boy, there are a lot of differences.

But anyways, you were talking about Eddie Savitz and some of the others involved in real pedophilia in the Philadelphia area.

Frank Parlato:

Well, I think it’s important to clarify that Greg never saw or was never abused by Jerry Sandusky. He was, he says, abused by Eddie Savitz, a notorious pedophile who died in prison. And it was established, I think beyond a reasonable doubt, that Eddie was a pedophile. And the sum total of evidence he has against Jerry Sandusky was that Eddie apparently attended a Second Mile charity event, and Savitz brought this boy (Bucceroni) with him, and that is it. That’s the evidence. And that Jerry said hello to him. And I don’t think you can conclude that just because Eddie Savitz, who might’ve been there to try to find boys to molest, came to a charity function where there were 100 people. Jerry was busy, by Greg’s own admission, shaking hands and talking to people. He didn’t spend any time with Eddie Savitz or Bucceroni And that isn’t enough evidence in my book that Jerry is a pedophile, because he ran a charity to help young people out, and a molester happened to come around.

Jeff Byers:

Let’s go to the Board of Trustees meeting on Friday, Frank. Let’s start with the letter you wrote to the trustees, and why you wrote that letter. And maybe for the folks who aren’t aware of the letter, what was stated in the letter and what you were hoping would be the outcome of sending that letter to each member of the Board of Trustees at Penn State.

Frank Parlato:

I wrote a letter. It was signed not only by me, but also by 65 other people, most of whom are distinguished people, Penn State graduates, Penn State teachers, professors. One was the head of the university press for 20 years. John Ziegler, the great investigative reporter, signed it. Tony Farina, another investigative reporter. We have doctors. We have lawyers. All of these people have taken a few minutes to study the evidence. And anyone who studies the evidence will quickly realize Jerry Sandusky was railroaded into prison by this group of connivers.

I sent the letter, basically, which explained that I have evidence that will show anyone who cares to look that Jerry Sandusky is innocent. And because Penn State boasts it is an institute of higher learning, and because Penn State was instrumental in railroading Jerry Sandusky, I thought it would behoove the Board of Trustees to look at this evidence. I asked their permission to submit evidence of Jerry Sandusky’s innocence, so they could look at this and acknowledge that this institute of higher learning railroaded a man into prison, and maybe it’s time to undo their crime against this innocent man.

Jeff Byers:

From a legal perspective, even if the Board of Trustees said, “Yep, you know what? We take a vote. We agree Jerry Sandusky was innocent, and it was a travesty what occurred,” the legal impact there is what?

Frank Parlato:

It’d be enormous, because the legal industry is very much wagged by the tail called the media, and the media drove Jerry into prison. And I believe it’s the media that has a responsibility to get him out. The various culprits who railroaded an innocent man have a responsibility, and Penn State is one of the culprits. They threw Jerry and Joe Paterno under the bus. They did not provide him with the presumption of innocence. And by firing Paterno, by presuming Jerry was guilty before a jury heard any evidence, by hiring a true gadfly, an incompetent prosecutor in his day, a man named Louis Freeh, former head of the FBI, by paying him money to betray their university.

The poser Louis Freehscored $8.3 million for a heap of bovine manure he called the Freeh Report.

These were the acts of cowardice and dishonesty that an institute of higher learning should not be guilty of. And they confessed to guilt that wasn’t theirs 12 years ago. Now they need to confess, the state, the university has to confess that they had a major hand in putting an innocent man in prison, and but for them, Jerry wouldn’t be in prison.

It’s no institute of higher learning if it doesn’t learn higher things. And the higher thing this board has yet to learn is that truth trumps political opportunism. Truth trumps fundraising and enrollment. I want the Board of Trustees to look at this evidence. Some trustees, I believe, are willing, but there are two who represent the faction that we must keep Jerry in prison. We must keep him silent until he dies, and then we’ll get past this. And these two board members conspired to shut down my letter and not let it be heard, because one of the trustees, Anthony Lubrano, a brave and fearless individual, wanted to bring this up before the board under the category of new business. And the chairman and his henchwoman shut it down by making a motion to adjourn before Lubrano could get the floor.

Jeff Byers:

To your knowledge, Frank, that is permissible, though, within the board? I don’t know what the rules are. I know there’s been some questions regarding the Sunshine Laws with the board. I truly don’t know the answer here. Is the board under any obligation to hear new business if it’s on the agenda? Do you know that?

Frank Parlato:

I do know that a board member has the right to take the floor and offer new business, usually at the end of the board meeting. And what happened was new business, it was time for new business to be discussed, and they conspired. These two characters conspired to close the meeting by asking for a motion to adjourn, which was offered and seconded at lightning speed. Before Lubrano could raise his hand to say, “I have some new business,” they adjourned the meeting. And not only did they adjourn it, they knew Lubrano was going to present this information, and they said, “We can’t let this trustee have the floor. We can’t let him speak.”

So, I think it’s unethical. It may be illegal. It may be some category of conspiracy. I don’t know. I’m not saying it’s criminal. It’s certainly unethical, and I don’t think you can suppress it for long. It’s going to get out that they don’t want this truth.

Jeff Byers:

Have you heard, Frank, from any board members in response to your letter?

Frank Parlato:

Yes. And some apparently are willing to consider that their previous board made an egregious mistake and unnecessarily tarnished Penn State 12 years ago by admitting to falsehoods, by believing a liar by the name of Mike McQueary, and a dishonest prosecutor by the name of Jonelle Esbach, who each, with their own lies, created a false narrative about Jerry in a shower that never happened.

Scott Geesey:

Frank, this is Scott Geesey. The last couple of times you’ve been on the show, by dumb luck, I was away both days. So, I’ve been listening from afar on this. Have you contacted anybody else? And I’m thinking the current Pennsylvania Attorney General, or the Center County district attorney, or elected officials, and in other words, I guess a level, if you will, higher than Penn State. Have you sent your letter or contacted anybody else with the information, and so on, that you’ve uncovered in your investigative reporting?

Frank Parlato:

I have waited for that day, which is coming shortly as I prepare what I believe is the most dispositive evidence package ever presented relative to Jerry Sandusky’s innocence. I offered to share it with the Penn State Trustees first for one good reason. I wanted to give them the opportunity to do the right thing. I don’t know if they’ll do that. It doesn’t matter if they do it or not. This evidence is so compelling. The evidence of Jerry Sandusky’s innocence is so astoundingly compelling, and so evident that it will be irresistible.

It’s going to fall on society like a bombshell. And then they’re going to realize, everyone, that it’s possible in our society to lynch a man, rush to judgment, pick out a witch and burn a witch at a stake before you bother to look at all the evidence.

The answer to your question, Scott, is that I have this package in preparation right now. It’s almost complete, and what it shows will be jaw-dropping for even someone who doesn’t care. And this package I wanted to offer to Penn State, I wanted to offer it to them first, so they could get in front of this, instead of being embarrassed by the tomfoolery of the chairman and his henchwoman trying to block the truth. That’s not higher learning.

Jeff Byers:

Frank, I just want to make sure we’re clear. What you asked for with the letter is just the opportunity to address the board and present the evidence you’ve compiled. Do I have that right?

Frank Parlato:

That is correct. I didn’t ask them for a judgment. We asked them to study as evidence. I wanted to provide them this evidence by the next board meeting, which will help them get in front of the undeniable truth, which will hit the nation shortly. And when you look at this evidence and how it’s put together, it’s dispositive. It’s not debatable. There’s no possibility that he got a fair trial, and it’s clear and unequivocal that these accusers all lied. There’s no possibility you can say he’s guilty. I wanted to give Penn State that chance not to embarrass themselves a second time, like they did 11, 12 years ago, and get in front of it. And two board members conspired to shut this down.

Jeff Byers:

Frank, as always, we appreciate the time. We will certainly stay in touch, appreciate all the work you are doing to get the truth out there, and we can’t thank you enough. Appreciate the time again this morning, Frank.

Frank Parlato:

It’s my pleasure, Scott, Jeff, thank you much for having me on your show.

Scott Geesey:

Thank you.

Jeff Byers:

It is Frank Parlato. You can see a compilation of all his work, not just on the Sandusky case, but also on other cases, frankreport.com, frankreport.com. We’re back with one final segment here on a Tuesday after this commercial timeout.

The post Jeff Byers Radio Show: Parlato Roasts Sandusky Accusers and Two Penn State Trustees Who Refuse To Examine Evidence of Innocence appeared first on Frank Report.