Here is another vignette of prosecutorial misconduct in the Jerry Sandusky case: Victim #8.
We do not know his name. No one does.
All we have for evidence of victim 8 is what a janitor said he heard from another janitor 12 years before the 2012 trial.
Forget the fact that biased Judge John Cleland would allow this horse crap of 12-year-old hearsay into the trial. Just consider the facts:
Penn State janitor Ron Petrosky told the jury at Sandusky’s criminal trial that another Penn State janitor, Jim Calhoun (who did not testify), said he saw someone he did not know licking a boy’s genitals in the locker room during the busy football season.
Petrosky said Calhoun told him he saw this abuse in 2000, but there is no record of Calhoun or anyone reporting it to police.
Petrosky testified he never saw any abuse.
But Petrosky did testify he saw Sandusky exit the Penn State locker room one night with a boy he thought was between 11 and 13. They were carrying athletic bags, apparently worked out in the gym, and had showered afterwards.
Petrosky said their hair was wet. He said good evening, and Sandusky and the boy did not slink away, cower or try to hide, but rather openly acknowledged him.
Janitor Petrosky noted the hallway in the Lasch building is long. Sandusky took the boy’s hand, as the two left the building.
Petrosky said he also saw Sandusky drive through the well-lit parking lot later that evening.
In his hearsay testimony, Petrosky described Calhoun as upset and crying. Petrosky testified Calhoun told him he had seen someone he did not know holding a boy up against the wall and licking him.
Ethically challenged prosecutor Jonelle Eschbach
Prosecutors Eschbach, Joe McGettigan, and Frank Fina worked hard to put together this hearsay evidence. They spent a lot of time coaching the simple janitor Petrosky and getting their prosecutorial partner, Judge John Cleland, to admit this as evidence.
Bias Judge John Cleland
Did Not Reveal Critical Evidence
While the prosecutors took great pains to make sure the jury made all the right inferences from the testimony of Petrosky, they did not bother to let the jury know that police had interviewed Calhoun, the janitor who allegedly witnessed the abuse.
PA state trooper Robert Yakicic recorded his interview with Jim Calhoun on May 15, 2011 — a year before the trial.
Though the prosecutors knew about the taped interview, they did not want to burden the jury with evidence contradicting the judge and the prosecution’s preferred verdict.
Jerry Sandusky got a most unfair trial. But it turned out exactly like the judge wanted it and set it up before the trial to ensure.
The Interview
On the tape, Trooper Yakicic asked Calhoun, 84 years old and in a wheelchair, what he thought of Sandusky.
Calhoun said he was “a pretty good guy,”
Yakicic asked Calhoun if he recalled the shower incident.
Calhoun said he did and would recognize the abuser if he encountered him.
Was it Sandusky?
Calhoun said, “No, I don’t believe it was.”
Yakicic asked, “You don’t?”
Calhoun said: “I don’t believe it was. I don’t think Sandusky was the person. It wasn’t him. There’s no way. Sandusky never did anything at all that I can see.”
A Lie by Omission
The prosecutors, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Jonelle Eschbach, Joe McGettigan and Frank Fina did one of the two things they do best — lie by omission.
The other thing they are good at is lying.
Relying on Petrosky’s hearsay evidence at a twelve-year remove, the judge’s decision that it was valid evidence and not knowing about the tape, the jury found Sandusky guilty of abusing an unknown, unnamed victim #8.
During his closing, prosecutor McGettigan said victim #8’s identity is “known to God, but not to us.”
But it is possible that even God does not know his identity for the simple reason that this Sandusky “victim” was never born.
This passes for justice in Pennsylvania, where hearsay evidence can be better than direct evidence.
Or, as they say in Pennsylvania, “verdict first, trial afterward.”
