Gov. Corbett's handling of the Sandusky case

[J. J. in Phila]

The results couldn't be any worse for the Joebots: Corbett cleared by a political rival.

If they had voted for a Republican AG, they could always hold on to the belief that Corbett's actions were covered up.

At the risk of sounding like Lubrano, we don't have the full report yet.

There is, however, a lot of backlash against Kane, and by extension, Democrats. Politically, this is a slight boost for Corbett (who has a hideous record of accomplishment, so far).

There is a plan to partially privatize liquor sales in PA. If Corbett achieves that, he could win. He basically needs a series of legislative victories to win.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Kane's investigation of the investigation is set for release Monday: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...nerals_review_of_je.html#incart_river_default

 

[Reader]

Report: Politics had no role in Sandusky probe

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PENN_STATE_ABUSE?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A report released Monday detailing the handling of the Jerry Sandusky child molestation case faults police and prosecutors for long delays in bringing charges but found no evidence that politics affected the investigation.

The report, commissioned by Attorney General Kathleen Kane and written by former federal prosecutor Geoff Moulton, blamed a three-year time lapse in filing charges on communication problems, an expungement of a 1998 complaint about the former Penn State coach and a failure to take certain investigative steps early on.......more at link.......

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Copy of the report: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...rt_on_the_ags_study_o.html#incart_maj-story-1

It comes very close to saying that there was no problem at the AG's Office.

The criticism is over one of the delay in March-August of 2010 and not initially getting a search warrant.

 

[Salem]

Is this the same report I just read?: http://www.buckslocalnews.com/articles/2014/06/23/bucks_news/doc53a83d9ee4fa6745936678.txt

A couple quotes from the linked article:

"Attorney General Kane made it clear to me from the beginning that this review was not about politics. This was about a core function of government – protecting children."

"In March 2010, prosecutor Eshbach circulated a draft presentment that recommended filing multiple charges against Sandusky, including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, a felony. But her pleas for a decision were ignored for five months. (See Appendix G.)" Why were her pleas ignored?


"This case sat inactive for months while a predator was on the streets and a victim waited for justice," Attorney General Kane said. "The Grand Jury presentment, drafted and supported by the lead prosecutor, sat on someone's desk for five months. Only after the lead prosecutor repeatedly pushed for an answer, the presentment was denied. It is unfathomable why there was such a lack of urgency."

"Moulton's report outlined several recommendations to continue reforming the way child sexual abuse is reported and investigated in Pennsylvania, including the following: In high-priority cases, senior management in the Executive Office at OAG should be more involved, direct greater attention and make decisions more quickly." It seems in this case senior management was involved and that is why the case was stonewalled. Maybe they need some kind of oversight committee to be sure this doesn't happen again.

Salem

 

[Reader]

Kane's report on Sandusky investigation fails to account for two new alleged victims

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/athleen_kanes_report_fails_to.html

"The office of attorney general received the case in March of 2009 and two individuals indicated that they were abused by Sandusky sexually in the fall of 2009," Kane said......

Her charge about 2009 was hotly denied by lead prosecutor Frank Fina, and several of his colleagues who worked the case.

"I have no information that those victims came forward, that they exist. I have no idea what she's talking about," Fina said. "As far as I know that's a fabrication."

Fina conceded there was one purported victim who came forward during the course of the probe who provided a variety of dates, including 2009, that he was sexually abused by Sandusky.

But he said that person's story was not deemed credible. "We weren't able to verify any of those, and there were profound issues with that individual," Fina said.......more.......

Dottie Sandusky on Kane report: 'There was no legitimate evidence against Jerry'

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/dottie_sandusky_on_kane_report.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped

"In March 2010, prosecutor Eshbach circulated a draft presentment that recommended filing multiple charges against Sandusky, including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, a felony. But her pleas for a decision were ignored for five months. (See Appendix G.)" Why were her pleas ignored?

They only had one victim, Victim 1.

Their answer was, **we need to find other victims.**

There may have some problems with Victim 1's credibility. Sandusky attempted to appeal the DPW finding; he withdrew the appeal. Before that, Eshbach tried to get a stay against the hearing, because she was concerned about Victim 1 being cross examined.

The police were in agreement.

"This case sat inactive for months while a predator was on the streets and a victim waited for justice," Attorney General Kane said. "The Grand Jury presentment, drafted and supported by the lead prosecutor, sat on someone's desk for five months. Only after the lead prosecutor repeatedly pushed for an answer, the presentment was denied. It is unfathomable why there was such a lack of urgency."

Why she didn't get a response sooner was unknown.

It seems in this case senior management was involved and that is why the case was stonewalled. Maybe they need some kind of oversight committee to be sure this doesn't happen again.

Salem

Some of that was supposed to handled at the county level, the "multidisciplinary approach." A lot of it was trying to find other victims. The first tip they had was in 11/2010.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There are some questions on if there were another two victims. The actual report does not mention them. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...kanes_report_fails_to.html#incart_maj-story-1

It does mention to other possible "grooming" subjects (p. 46, PDF p. 50).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There are now serious questions about if there were two additional victims:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...sandusky_abuse_more.html#incart_river_default

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Kane now admits to "misspeaking." One the people she claimed was abused was actually Victim 9. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140625_State_Police_chief_assails_Kane_over_Sandusky_claims.html

He was not abused after 2008.

There was another claimant out there, but the 2012 prosecutors have said that he had credibility problems.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Now, there is this editorial on Kane getting "sloppy."


http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/06/kane_retracts_one_claim_sandus.html#incart_related_stories

While I disagree with some aspects of the Moulton Report, it is good overall.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a satirical blog up on Kane's comments: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/06/30/4246405/a-modest-proposal.html?sp=/99/236/704/694/

 

[StellarsJay]

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/230970729/Sandusky-investigation-report

This should provice a link has the text of Moulton's Report to the Attorney General, about 330 pages.