ShareThis Page
Ex-prosecutors dispute Kane claim of 2 ignored Sandusky victims |

Ex-prosecutors dispute Kane claim of 2 ignored Sandusky victims

The Tribune-Review
| Monday, June 23, 2014 2:00 p.m
Former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky leaves the Centre County Courthouse on June 21, 2012, in Bellefonte, Pa.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane fields questions from the media during a news conference on Monday, June 23, 2014, in Harrisburg.
Special Deputy Attorney General H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr. speaks on Monday, June 23, 2014, during a news conference on the results of a probe into the Jerry Sandusky investigation as Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (left) stands by.
H. Geoffrey Moulton, a law professor and former federal prosecutor, headed the investigation of how the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office handled the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse investigation.
Kane hired former federal prosecutor Geoffrey Moulton to review the Sandusky case.

HARRISBURG — Two former state prosecutors flatly denied an explosive charge leveled on Monday by Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who said two men claimed Jerry Sandusky abused them in fall 2009.

That would have been several months after the attorney general’s office, under Tom Corbett, then attorney general, began investigating Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Penn State University, for serial child sexual assault.

Kane said inexplicable delays slowed the investigation and might have helped keep Sandusky on the prowl. Her predecessors knew before she took office last year about the alleged abuse in late 2009 but did not include it in Sandusky’s June 2012 criminal trial, she said.

The alleged abuse isn’t mentioned in a 166-page report that Kane ordered to evaluate the Sandusky investigation, nor is it included in Kane’s news release.

Frank Fina and Joseph McGettigan, two former deputy attorneys general who successfully prosecuted Sandusky, said they don’t know what Kane was discussing. Fina called her claim “absolutely mind-numbing.”

Asked for details, Kane said, “We don’t want to give any identifying information for these individuals. Because Sandusky is in jail, there were also victims we found who were not found previously. Those victims have indicated … they do not wish to prosecute at this time.”

Her special deputy, H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr., said it was reported to state prosecutors in 2011.

“We do not know they exist,” said McGettigan, the lead prosecutor at Sandusky’s trial. “We tried the case, and we don’t know who she was talking about.”

After Kane’s statement at a Capitol news conference, Fina said he called each investigator and asked, “ ‘Is there anything to it?’ They said, ‘It’s fiction,’ ” Fina told the Tribune-Review.

J.J. Abbott, Kane’s spokesman, said she stands by her statement.

“This was a campaign promise she made; it was a trick she used to get elected,” Fina said of the review, accusing Kane, a Democrat, of political spin when the results didn’t match her 2012 campaign statements.

Fina said one young man told investigators that Sandusky assaulted him, but the alleged assault wasn’t in the fall of 2009, and prosecutors didn’t learn of it until 2012. They determined the man’s account was not credible.

Corbett, a Republican, is seeking re-election this year as governor.

A Centre County jury convicted Sandusky, now 70, of abusing 10 young men over 15 years, often on Penn State property. He is serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence.

Brad Bumsted and Adam Smeltz are Trib Total Media staff writers.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.