Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7

[pinktoes]

JJ: Yes, Amendola is undoubtedly trying to find out more about that victim. And everything else he can. He's been on retainer by Sandusky since 2008 and had a PI working too.

What is your "very bad feeling about this"?

 

[pinktoes]

Mike Madeira cited a possible conflict of interest when he passed on the Sandusky case. Later said it was because his wife's bio brother is an adopted child of Sandusky's. I assume he meant Matt.

But, Madeira tried and convicted another brother of his wife's (Lisa's): Ron Heichel. Heichel and his co-conspirator Boob were both readily convicted of murder and other charges by a jury in March, 2011. Around August, 2011 both appealed those convictions, which carry automatic life sentences. Still pending, I think. They murdered Boob's husband. At trial it came out that she had been looking for someone to do that job. Interesting that Matt's brother is in the murder-for-hire line of work. Although, in his defense, there was testimony that he and Boob were briefly sexually involved.

Ron and Matt Heichel (now Matt Sandusky, who was adopted only after he turned 18 and was, thus, an adult) played football with Mike McQueary. Here are some links to all this. I've only read spottily here, so you regulars might have already posted all this. Sorry if it's redundant.

"Before Sandusky adopted Matt Heichel, the youngest of the family's six adopted children, Witmer coached Heichel and his brother Ronald in teener league baseball. Sandusky would drop the boys off for practice or games — sometimes staying to quietly watch — and pick them up when it was over....

Last March, Ronald Heichel was convicted on charges, including first-degree murder, in the August 2009 shooting of a Centre Hall man."

link:
http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...-cant-predict-what-tuesday-will-bring-957934/

One of the witnesses:
http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/16/2586182/trial-of-pair-accused-in-centre.html

 

[pinktoes]

BTW, this might be the judge that somebody said was corrupt. Just coincidentally intersects with the Ron Heichel case:

"BELLEFONTE - A judge will not take Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller off the murder case against Bellefonte man Ronald Heichel because she hired a former public defender when she took office in January. Judge Pamela Ruest ruled this week..."

link:
http://www.wgrc.com/news/2010-04-23-april-23rd-2010

There was also an attempt to remove Parks Miller from the case. Here's a mention of that, but i didn't get the entire article:

http://www.*********.com/news/5668040-parks-miller-to-remain-on-heichel-murder-case

I have no idea what this means, but since Ron Heichel is the brother of Matt Sandusky, and also Mike Madeira's brother-in-law (bio brother of Lisa Madeira), it might mean something relative to Jerry Sandusky's current case. And other things.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: Yes, Amendola is undoubtedly trying to find out more about that victim. And everything else he can. He's been on retainer by Sandusky since 2008 and had a PI working too.

What is your "very bad feeling about this"?

Okay, then the PSP asked about the 1998 incident, they were asking about what conversations between JKA and RFG. They were not asking, with that question/interview about what Sandusky did. They were not asking, so far as we know, about what Schultz or Curley did, what Spanier did or what Paterno did. They were asking, in a criminal investigation, about the decision Ray Gricar made as the prosecutor.

I've called the decision not to prosecute a colossal lapse of judgment on RFG's part; apparently it was a bad enough decision, that LE looked at this decision. A lapse of judgment is just that, a bad judgment call, an error, but it is not criminal, unethical, or an abuse of discretion. I hope all that it is is a colossal lapse of judgment.

 

[pinktoes]

JJ: I know the AG said there was only 1 grand jury. But I don't understand exactly how the grand jury system works in PA, which is a rather unique state. I think maybe the AG would only be speaking about grand juries under his/her jurisdiction. Which would be "statewide grand juries". Each county can call their own G.J, which would be an investigating one (that's all PA uses them for now; not to indict). And wouldn't it be called by the county's DA?

So, the AG shouldn't really be addressing the question of any single county's G.J. Just statewide ones. It's possible that one of the counties had a DA who was investigating Sandusky at the county level. And it's possible that K. Arnold, since she worked on child abuse cases, was working on/has worked on cases involving Sandusky other than the one(s) Gricar worked on . Right?

Here's a link to PA's use of G. J.s. Maybe someone can bring more info in, if need be.

"Connecticut and Pennsylvania have abolished the use of grand juries to return indictments, but kept the investigating grand jury. ... Pennsylvania's amendment gave each county court the option of using informations, instead of indictments, to bring charges. All of the courts chose that option and ended the use of the indicting grand jury in Pennsylvania...."

link:
http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/funcsgj.htm

 

[pinktoes]

Okay, then the PSP asked about the 1998 incident, they were asking about what conversations between JKA and RFG. They were not asking, with that question/interview about what Sandusky did. They were not asking, so far as we know, about what Schultz or Curley did, what Spanier did or what Paterno did. They were asking, in a criminal investigation, about the decision Ray Gricar made as the prosecutor.

I've called the decision not to prosecute a colossal lapse of judgment on RFG's part; apparently it was a bad enough decision, that LE looked at this decision. A lapse of judgment is just that, a bad judgment call, an error, but it is not criminal, unethical, or an abuse of discretion. I hope all that it is is a colossal lapse of judgment.

JJ: In the context of the trials of Curley & Schultz, wouldn't asking about KA's involvement be related to their charges? I.e, either their failure to report, and/or their perjury charges? So, why would they ask about KA's knowledge? Could even be just a way to lay the groundwork for further questions to see if she knew anything, perhaps from another case(s) even, that might bear on the charges against Curley & Schultz.

Prosecutors not so interested in Gricar's decision at that point. Prosecutors investigating those charges against Curley & Schultz. Put Gricar aside for a moment. What bearing would KA's knowledge have on C & S charges??

 

[pinktoes]

Oh, I found a link to the "3 previous grand juries" stuff. In addition to the PSU Trustee saying the Board was told that, there's more. Can anyone find a flat-out denial that there were more? All I see here from the Deputy AG is that he has "no info". Doesn't mean there weren't any. And, again, I think he'd be speaking only wrt GJs under his dept's control--not county GJs:

"Senior Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo said he had no information about any prior grand juries and declined to comment further.

University spokesman Bill Mahon said he had heard there were prior grand juries but didn't know details."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/19/3058390_psu-trustees-sandusky-investigated.html#storylink=cpy

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In an email Tuesday, Arnold inferred what Amendola said was not true, but she didn’t elaborate.

“If you want to know what I said on anything concerning the 1998 investigation, you will find that in my grand jury testimony,” Arnold said in the email.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/08/3082313/amendola-seeks-evidence.html#storylink=cpy

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: In the context of the trials of Curley & Schultz, wouldn't asking about KA's involvement be related to their charges?

I don't think so. Curley and Schultz are not charged regarding anything in 1998. Nobody has suggested that Harmon had any knowledge of the 2002 incident or that anybody the DA's Office was informed of the 2002 incident. They are being charged in relation to the 2002 incident.

So, why would they ask about KA's knowledge?

They were not asking about. I double checked; it was from the defense attorney from Schultz.

He asked Harmon:

Farrell (Schultz's attorney): Did you yourself have any communications with the District Attorney

Harmon (Director of University Police): I did not.

Farrell: Did you yourself have any communications with a Karen Arnold of the District Attorney's Office? [/i]

Page 128

Could even be just a way to lay the groundwork for further questions to see if she knew anything, perhaps from another case(s) even, that might bear on the charges against Curley & Schultz.

She wasn't being questioned. Schultz, Curley, or Harmon never said that they talked to anyone at the DA's Office.

Prosecutors not so interested in Gricar's decision at that point. Prosecutors investigating those charges against Curley & Schultz. Put Gricar aside for a moment. What bearing would KA's knowledge have on C & S charges??

It was the defense attorney, my error,

Harmon said that he didn't talk to anyone at the DA's Office. Curley and Schultz never testified that they spoke with anyone from the DA's Office. JKA said he role in the case consisted of "...a brief pre-Ray Gricar involvement with the ’98 situation."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/28/3001551/an-interesting-approach.html#storylink=cpy

I believe her, and the rest of the staff in 1998 is same thing. S, C, and H don't indicate any involvement of JKA in this, and the first two of them are defendants. Now we have two sets of defense attorneys asking about it.

Something is going on.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Oh, I found a link to the "3 previous grand juries" stuff. In addition to the PSU Trustee saying the Board was told that, there's more. Can anyone find a flat-out denial that there were more? All I see here from the Deputy AG is that he has "no info". Doesn't mean there weren't any. And, again, I think he'd be speaking only wrt GJs under his dept's control--not county GJs:

"Senior Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo said he had no information about any prior grand juries and declined to comment further.

University spokesman Bill Mahon said he had heard there were prior grand juries but didn't know details."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/19/3058390_psu-trustees-sandusky-investigated.html#storylink=cpy

The AG's Office said there were no others investigating Sandusky: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...state-board-of-trustees-claim-on-sex-scandal/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Mike Madeira cited a possible conflict of interest when he passed on the Sandusky case. Later said it was because his wife's bio brother is an adopted child of Sandusky's. I assume he meant Matt.

But, Madeira tried and convicted another brother of his wife's (Lisa's): Ron Heichel. Heichel and his co-conspirator Boob were both readily convicted of murder and other charges by a jury in March, 2011. Around August, 2011 both appealed those convictions, which carry automatic life sentences. Still pending, I think. They murdered Boob's husband. At trial it came out that she had been looking for someone to do that job. Interesting that Matt's brother is in the murder-for-hire line of work. Although, in his defense, there was testimony that he and Boob were briefly sexually involved.

I'm not sure of the biological relationship, but Madeira didn't try that case. It was SPM who tried it and got convictions. MTM was out of office more than a year prior to the trial.

Here is the AG's page on PA grand juries: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=207

They are secret, but witnesses are free to discuss their testimony. Like the Sandusky GJ, it usually leaks.

 

[Hbgchick]

Well, then becomes a question of the level of moral culpability. How much more could Paterno have done, without violating either the law or morality.

I've put forward the argument that there was not too much more he could have done.

And I agree. What Paterno actually said was "With hindsight I wish I would have done more." With hindsight. Meaning, of course, after all of this came to light and he realized that they had a predator there all along. But at the time of the incident, the benefit of hindsight does not exist, and I believe he acted with due process by reporting it to his superiors.

 

[BigCat]

And I agree. What Paterno actually said was "With hindsight I wish I would have done more." With hindsight. Meaning, of course, after all of this came to light and he realized that they had a predator there all along. But at the time of the incident, the benefit of hindsight does not exist, and I believe he acted with due process by reporting it to his superiors.

I don't believe that's any different than what I'm suggesting.

Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

In a leader, denial is fatal. Paterno was relieved of his duties because of a failure of leadership. He was not charged with a crime. I think that's fair based on what we know now.

 

[pinktoes]

OK, I'm getting the cast of characters in Ron Heichel's trial clear:

"Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira is representing the Commonwealth. Miranda Boob, 27, is being represented by private attorney Edward Blanarik.

Public Defender Casey McClain is representing Heichel, 29, of Bellefonte."

from article subtitled: Mirinda Boob, Ronald Heichel headed to court in man’s death
September 17, 2009

link:
http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512981.html

____________________

If we could cut to the chase, there are a lot of people who think it most likely that Gricar just walked off. Why? Was he or a loved one threatened? Did he take a bribe? Was it related to the shaken-baby case with a hearing coming up the following week?

Or, do people think Gricar was involved in some crime himself, which was about to come to light? A child sex ring/child trafficking? What do people think?

 

[passionflower]

http://www.wpxi.com/news/ap/top-news/sandusky-argues-for-local-jurors-suggests-delay/nHXqQ/

neighbors say that Sandusky sits on his porch and watches little children play at the playground that is directly in front of his house!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

OK, I'm getting the cast of characters in Ron Heichel's trial clear:

"Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira is representing the Commonwealth. Miranda Boob, 27, is being represented by private attorney Edward Blanarik.

Public Defender Casey McClain is representing Heichel, 29, of Bellefonte."

from article subtitled: Mirinda Boob, Ronald Heichel headed to court in man’s death
September 17, 2009

link:
http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/512981.html

The case didn't go to trial until 2011.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/17/2590106/update-jurors-hear-recorded-conversation.html

Madeira was out of office on 1/1/2010

I have no idea if Heichel was related to Madeira's wife, but it wouldn't make a difference because he was no longer the DA and hadn't been for about a year.

RFG had no involvement in the case, as he was missing for more than four years prior to it happening.

If we could cut to the chase, there are a lot of people who think it most likely that Gricar just walked off. Why? Was he or a loved one threatened? Did he take a bribe? Was it related to the shaken-baby case with a hearing coming up the following week?

The Mendez-Vargas case, the shaken baby case, was not scheduled and unlikely to have been tried prior to RFG leaving office, if he hadn't disappeared. Further, it ended up with a nolo contendere plea to involuntary manslaughter with time served.

Or, do people think Gricar was involved in some crime himself, which was about to come to light? A child sex ring/child trafficking? What do people think?

I think it is fair to say that most people in the region think his vanishing was not due to foul play. I'm personally very skeptical and while I think voluntary departure is a bit more likely, I would not dismiss foul play.

51% walkaway, 44% foul play.

 

[Reader]

Prosecutors Ask Judge to Order Sandusky Indoors

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpps/new...-sandusky-indoors-dpgapx-20120207-kh_17743744

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Prosecutors asked Tuesday to have Jerry Sandusky kept indoors as part of his bail conditions, citing complaints that the former Penn State football assistant was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he remains under house arrest while awaiting trial on child molestation charges.

The state attorney general's office argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment. Prosecutors said they opposed Sandusky's request to be allowed contact with his grandchildren as he awaits trial on 52 child sex-abuse charges.
--------

It said Sandusky's son's ex-wife "strenuously objects" to her three minor children having any contact with him, and that prosecutors believe Sandusky was fortunate to be granted bail.

"The commonwealth believes that (the) defendant should be in jail," prosecutors wrote. "He has been granted the privilege of being confined in his own home, which is spacious and private and where he can eat food of his own preference and sleep in his own bed at night. House arrest is not meant to be a house party."

That court document, and several motions filed late Monday by Sandusky's lawyer, come ahead of a court hearing Friday regarding his bail modification request.
------

A request contained in the latest defense filings concerned an interview with a former Centre County deputy prosecutor who has said little publicly about the role she may have played in the decision not to prosecute Sandusky more than a decade ago, after a mother complained about contact between Sandusky and her son in a university football team shower.

A state police report, Amendola wrote, "describes an interview with Karen Arnold, a former assistant district attorney of Centre County, wherein she and former District Attorney Ray Gricar had extensive disagreements over a 1998 police investigation regarding the defendant." Gricar disappeared in April 2005 and was declared legally dead last year.


More at link....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Several allegations against Sandusky made by family member have been declared unfounded.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/attorney_jerry_sandusky_cleare.html

These are allegations, not the charges.

 

[pinktoes]

This would be a possible connection between Jerry Sandusky and Ray Gricar's disappearance, IF foul play were involved:

Ronald Heichel was convicted of murdering a man in centre county, conspiring with the man's wife (who had attempted to get someone else to murder her husband). So, let's say R Heichel is prone to do murders for hire, if only at the behest of someone he has some sort of connection to. (That's giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he hasn't been in the murder-for-hire business.)

Maybe R Heichel has committed similar previous crimes. If you assume he has feelings for his brother Matt (Heichel) Sandusky, Jerry's youngest adopted child. Further assume that Matt wants to protect someone against legal problems. Let's assume that person is Jerry. Well, WE don't know what cases Gricar had knowledge of. Maybe Gricar knew about other cases under investigation, or just knew about not-yet-formally investigated crimes by Jerry. Well, there's your tie from a Gricar-foul-play scenario to Matt's brother Ron, a convicted murderer.

IF.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This would be a possible connection between Jerry Sandusky and Ray Gricar's disappearance, IF foul play were involved:

Ronald Heichel was convicted of murdering a man in centre county, conspiring with the man's wife (who had attempted to get someone else to murder her husband). So, let's say R Heichel is prone to do murders for hire, if only at the behest of someone he has some sort of connection to. (That's giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he hasn't been in the murder-for-hire business.)

First, you assume that they are brothers, and am not sure that they are. (They may be, but they don't appear to be close.)

Second, in the Heichal/Boob case, Heichal was having an affair with Boob. In that case, the motive was not money or protection. He wanted to hook up with Mirinda Boob.

Third, why kill someone who is not prosecuting you? On 4/15/05, there were three very possible candidates for the next DA (JKA had token opposition in the primary). Bascom and Madeira were fighting it out for the R nomination, and JKA was likely to be D nominee, but there were three people that could be the next DA. RFG was supporting Madeira.

Fourth, the actual witnesses, and the police that investigated the 1998 incident were key, and they are still around. The only that isn't is in the military.

So, according to this theory, Sandusky's adopted son's brother (or not), killed the man that was not prosecuting Sandusky, while leaving all the witnesses and documents in place to permit prosecution and who might be replaced by someone who would prosecute, but he couldn't be sure whom?

Oh, and Heichel, who is so incompetent that he gets arrested in a fortnight for the murder, can kill a brilliant and "street smart" district attorney in broad daylight 50 miles from home without even leaving a crime scene?

That is what you are suggesting.