Wednesday, November 9

Election 2016: No Surprise! Media Wrong Again

After five years of examining the media's habit of promoting false narratives and ignoring the facts, it should not have come as a surprise to Penn Staters that the media was all wrong about the 2016 election. 


Ray Blehar

While most of America woke up in shock this morning, on election day I was quite confident that the media had blown it and that the polls and predictions couldn't be more wrong.  

It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but in the last five years the evidence reported on this blog has shown the media blew major stories on the Duke lacrosse scandal, the Hillsborough soccer disaster, Richard Jewell, the UVa rape case, and the Exxon Valdez.

The common thread among these stories was that the media fell in love with a narrative and ignored the evidence against it.

There is little question the media favored Hillary Clinton and wanted her to become the first female President.  After they made the seemingly easily defeatable (in their opinion) Donald Trump her opponent, they went on to bias the reporting against him.  Meanwhile, the media did its best to not report Clinton's problems or to downplay them as much as possible.

In the Sandusky scandal, this type of reporting was evident over the last five years.  The improbable story offered by the Office of Attorney General in its Sandusky grand jury presentment and the scant evidence offered in the Freeh Report were readily accepted as facts condemning PSU's (and Paterno's) culpability.  

When evidence came out contrary to the narrative of a Penn State/Paterno cover up and showing that the evidence in the Freeh Report was biased and wrong, it was either not reported or discounted completely by the media.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

2016 Election Analysis

While the media is still trying to put its finger on where it went wrong, the answer is obvious to those who understand the influence of cognitive biasing in making projections.  In short, cognitive biasing ignores information and evidence that would cause an adjustment or change to a projection.

The final IBT-TIPP poll, which as correctly predicted the last four elections (including 2016) had Trump winning.  The media paid little notice to this poll, instead relying on other polls and the poll average.  

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders battled for the nomination with Sanders winning numerous states the "rust belt" states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  See the map below with Sanders in green and Clinton in gold.

Next, while Sanders didn't win Pennsylvania and Ohio, he competed well in both states, winning around 43% of the popular vote in both states.  

To the shock of the media, who had Clinton winning the "rust belt," Trump was doubling down in the seemingly solid Clinton "rust belt" states.  

What was going on?

The Trump campaign rightfully dismissed the biased media reports and instead looked at the evidence.  It understood that some Democrats and Independents who supported Sanders could be swung to support him.   

Emails released at the time of the Democratic National Convention revealed that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was tipping the scales in favor of Clinton.   Emails released just before the election revealed that DNC Chair Donna Brazile was leaking questions to Clinton for her debates against Sanders.  Sanders' supporters were ripe for the picking.

It also understood, thanks to Liberal film maker Michael Moore's Trumpland, that the "rust belt" was indeed vulnerable due to the economics of the region.

Finally -- and this point will strike home with Penn Staters who have been called pedophile and child rape enablers -- many Trump voters knew they would be demeaned as bigots, homophobes, xenophobes, and other derogatory terms if they admitted who they were going to support.  As a result, they lied to the pollsters about for whom they would and/or did cast a vote.  

Not only were most of media's pre-election polls wrong, but so are its exit polls.

In summary, Bernie Sanders supporters could not be counted on to support Hillary Clinton and many of them lived in the "rust belt." The Trump campaign made an evidence based decision to go after those votes.  Meanwhile, there was a percentage of voters who were silently Trump backers.  In combination, the those factors threw off the polls -- "Big League."

Coming Together In A Time of Crisis

Over the last five years, there is little doubt that the Sandusky scandal - a crisis - became a unifying force among tens of thousands of Penn Staters and even those who were not affiliated with the University, but who valued the truth.

We all knew the media narrative was wrong.  

It didn't matter if we were white, black, red, male, female, Republican, Democrat, gay, transgender, or straight.   

Barry Bozeman, the founder of this blog, is a hard core Liberal Democrat.  

I am a registered Republican.

The truth, or finding it was all that mattered. Our political differences were put aside to work for a greater cause.

As you are probably aware, Anthony Lubrano, another truth seeker was a registered Republican who campaigned for Democrat Kathleen Kane because she promised to investigate the Sandusky matter.

For about half of those who read this blog, this morning's result was likely saddening and considered disastrous.  

Now you know how the other half of us felt in 2008 and 2012.

We lived.  We didn't hold mass protests.  We stuck it out.

So, stay here and stay in the fight for the truth -- the force that unifies us all.

Finding the truth was Joe Paterno's death bed wish.

While the nation is undoubtedly divided over the election, there is a glimmer of hope for Republicans and Democrats to come together and make that wish come true.

In October 2014, unabashed Liberal MSNBC Commentator Chris Matthews made this statement about Joe Paterno.

“I’m going to editorialize. I think JoePa’s coming back at some point. I don’t know how long it’s going to take — you don’t have to say it, I’m saying it, I’m not running for anything.  I don’t know what kind of words were passed about Sandusky’s conduct, but horsing around doesn’t tell me anything. I want to know the words — I’m tired of words that don’t tell you anything. It was a terrible thing that happened to those kids, terrible beyond belief. People should’ve used English graphic language to describe to other people. There shouldn’t have been any confusion, and I think there was.”
You can check out the video of the exchange here  (credit: OnwardState).

On the Conservative side, here is President-elect Donald Trump on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, talking about bringing back the Paterno statue and referring to the fiasco by saying "how about that whole deal."

As we should have learned over the last five years, the reason that few politicians have come to our aid is that the Sandusky scandal and the topic of child sexual abuse is too toxic and has a way of bringing an end to the careers of those who have gone near it.

This scandal and finding the truth will not and cannot be handled by anyone in Pennsylvania.  The help we need must come from Washington DC. 

Regardless of how you feel about last nights election, having the most powerful man in the world in your corner is a very good thing.  

A thing that could bring people together.


Monday, November 7

5 Years On - Can We Influence the Media to Finally Get This Right?

SORRY - I FORGOT THIS WAS SCHEDULED - IT WAS AN IDEA FROM A FEW WEEKS AGO PRIOR TO THE McQueary Verdict   - this was an idea in progress that was not positively affected by the McQueary trial and verdict as I had hoped.  

Something else needs to be done to mark the 5 year anniversary - so my apologies to everyone -  


Five years of SMSS posting on this travesty - Time to Call for Action 

Media Naivety, Complicity, and Stupidity.  

Please revisit this post: ANATOMY OF A MEDIA FRENZY  from Jan. 7, 2011

Saving those links to all those media accounts - that frenzy of condemnation by an almost unanimous media that rushed to condemn Joe Paterno and PSU for enabling the continued crimes of Jerry Sandusky based on the Victim 2 portion of Attorney General Linda Kelly's Presentment could now come in handy. 

Those are the people complicit in the crime of defamation who should forever be tarnished with their feckless irresponsible journalism. Did they not know what a Presentment is? 

A Presentment is supposed to be an accurate synopsis of Grand Jury testimony given under oath but without the benefit of cross-examination, without the introduction of exculpatory evidence, without providing full quotes in context by the witness, and without the presence of counsel outside the Office of the Attorney General. 

The Presentment is typically the case against the defendant stated in the most damning terms alleging the "facts" in the case as seen by the prosecution alone. 

Yet the media treated this Presentment as unassailable FACT and used it to condemn Joe Paterno as the man who heard about a 10-year-old boy being raped by a Penn State Coach from Mike McQueary and chose only to report this to Athletic Director Tim Curley. 


The Victim 2 Presentment by AG Linda Kelly was a BALD FACED LIE. In short this:
(McQueary) saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. ....(McQueary) reported what he had seen to Joe Paterno.
was a complete misrepresentation of the testimony before the Grand Jury.
We know this for certain because McQueary says it was: 

McQueary wrote the OAG telling them he was never certain of  "intercourse" He never saw "penetration" and he certainly never told Joe Paterno that. 


We also know that the jury in the Jerry Sandusky Trial returned very few "NOT GUILTY" verdicts on Sandusky. One of those few NOT GUILTY verdicts was Victim 2  Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse. 

So the person who's testimony is the basis for the Presentment by Linda Kelly told her office that the presentment was wrong - a lie - and the jury that heard testimony on that charge ruled NOT GUILTY.


Many in the Media said - 85-year-old Joe Paterno admitted his culpability when he said: "I wish I had done more". That is also a misrepresentation. Joe Paterno said, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."  

Well don't we all? All of us have said at one time we wish we could have foreseen a future where an event in our past came close to offering a chance to do something that may have avoided a consequence we could not see at the time.  

Of course, anyone who has followed the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal on this website knows far more about this fake media produced disaster known as "The Penn State Child Abuse Scandal". But for the moment could we focus on this simple set of FACTS. 


Thursday, November 3

Evidence Supports OAG Decision on Identity of Victim 2

Analysis of available evidence proves that A.M.'s statements were full of inconsistencies and that the OAG was on solid ground to state he was not Victim 2.

By Ray Blehar

A.M. will testify at Jerry's Sandusky's Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing this Friday.  Undoubtedly, he will state he was Victim 2 (V2) -- the child in the shower on February 9, 2001.  

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not A.M. was the shower victim from 2001, however, that's not what tomorrow's hearing is about.

Lindsay Claims OAG Knew AM was V2

Arthur Lindsay, counsel for Jerry Sandusky, submitted an amended PCRA on May 4, 2016.   Issue #1 stated that OAG prosecutor Joseph McGettigan’s  reference to “others presently known to God, but not to us” was in reference to V2 and that McGettigan lying because he knew that V2 was A.M.   

Proving what is in someone else's mind is a tall mountain to climb.  

It is even harder to prove when the witness who is supposed to support the claim has provided false and contradictory evidence to investigators.  

Evidence Against Issue #1

1.  McGettigan's statement “presently known to God but not to us” may have been nothing more than a reference to commonly known facts about lack of disclosures by individuals who were victimized. The evidence and research on child sexual victimization that show many victims never come forward to publicly disclose their abuse, especially those who formed a bond with their offender.[1]   

2.  Research also shows that child molesters who abuse children of the same sex offend more frequently and with more children than offenders who molest children of the opposite sex.   A study by Abel[2] of 377 non-incarcerated, non–incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that pedophiles abusing victims of the opposite sex on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas pedophiles who molest children of the same sex had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts.   According to the trial verdicts, Sandusky falls into the latter category of a same sex molester and McGettigan was on firm ground to state Sandusky had many more victims (i.e. "known only to God") than those that came forward and disclosed during the investigation

3.   Ironically, Sandusky’s PCRA contained considerable evidence revealing that A.M. provided contrived, contradictory, and false statements throughout his interviews with investigators.  

4. While it is expected that victims will first deny abuse when confronted and then may incrementally disclose abuse, the inconsistencies about victimization would be expected.  To be clear, these inconsistencies would be expected and not be considered grounds to doubt A.M.'s credibility.  For informational purposes, a brief summary of A.M.'s statements regarding his victimization follows:

a. September 20, 2011 - no victimization.
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, Pages 436, 437)

b. November 9, 2011 (Everhart interview) - no victimization.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, Pages 443-445)

c. February 28, 2012 - stated 
he was untruthful in his first interview with police, but didn't provide details. 
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2,  pages 438-440)

d.  March 8, 2012 - disclosed he was 
abused on three trips (outside Pennsylvania) he took with Sandusky.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, pages 441, 442) 

e.  March 16, 2012 - disclosed he was abused on during a trip in the 
car to Erie, Pennsylvania and on 10 occasions in the PSU locker room, but did not provide specifics.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, pages 443-449) 

f.   April 3, 2012 - scheduled interview with A.M. did not occur.  Attorney 
Andrew Shubin attempted to provide a written statement alleging specific acts.  Investigators rejected Shubin's statement and ceased contact with A.M. and Shubin.
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, page 449)

Analysis: While A.M. may indeed be one of Sandusky's victims, Shubin's influence on his versions of events diminished his credibility in the eyes of the investigators.

5. In his March 16, 2012 interview with Postal Inspection Service Agent M.J. Coricelli, A.M. stated that Sandusky called him in 2009 to inform him that an individual from Lock Haven had accused him of "some stuff" he didn't do.  In addition, A.M. stated that Sandusky contacted him in March 2011 and asked him to write a letter of support for him.  A.M. did not write the letter, however, Sandusky sent him one which he read over and signed.  A.M. sent the letter (that he didn't write) to the Centre Daily Times under his signature.

6.  Additionally, In his March 16, 2012 interview with Postal Inspection Service Agent M.J. Coricelli, A.M. provided telephone voicemail records that indicated 
Sandusky began calling him on August 31, 2011 – just one day after the Harrisburg Patriot News released a story[3]
 titled, “Investigation of Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State football staffer, is nearing its end, sources say.”   Sandusky left two voice mails on September 7, 2011 – the same day the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) first contacted A.M. in an attempt to interview him.  On September 12, A.M. received another  voicemail[4] from Sandusky advising him to go forward.

7.  A.M. was interviewed by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) on September 20, 2010.  In that interview he stated that he joined The Second Mile (TSM) in the 3rd or 4th grade (in 1997 or 1998) and participated in its programs for about five years.   He acknowledged working out and showering with Sandusky but claimed that nothing inappropriate occurred.

Sandusky contacted A.M on September 21 and 22, 2011 – the two days following A.M.’s initial interview with the PSP. A.M. also played a round of golf with Sandusky, TSM's Bruce Heim, and PSU Trustee Ryan McCombie later that month.

9.  A.M.'s voicemail records revealed that Sandusky contacted him at least seven times from the initial contact in August up until November 3rd -- the day before the charges were filed.  

10.  Approximately one week after Sandusky's final voicemail, investigator Curtis Everhart interviewed A.M. in the law office of Sandusky’s attorney, Joseph Amendola.  

11.  A.M. stated that he and his mother learned that attorney Joseph Amendola wanted to speak with them, which led to the November 9, 2011 interview at Amendola's law office.

12. Early in the interview with Everhart, A.M. stated that he and his mother met with his high school guidance counselor, who recommended he attend The Second Mile.  West Branch High School included grades 
7 - 12.

13.    Later in that same interview, A.M. provided a contradictory and false statement alleging that he quit The Second Mile during the sixth grade.

14.  A copy of the charity’s 2001 Annual Report for the year ending August 31, 2001, contains a photograph of AM with the following caption that proved he was involved in the charity while in the ninth grade

"<A.M.>, a ninth grader from Clearfield County, was asked to simply say a few words about his thoughts and feelings regarding The Second Mile to an audience of approximately 350 donors at one of our recent donor events. However, what he said was so much more."

15.  The OAG's Sandusky investigation uncovered records showing A.M. was in The Second Mile from 1996 (or fifth grade) until 2001(or ninth grade).   

Analysis:  A.M. clearly made a false statement about his participation in TSM's programs in his November 9th interview.  It is highly probable that he was influenced to do so to ensure that The Second Mile would not be ensnared by any crimes arising from the 2001 shower incident. 

16.  After Everhart permitted him to read the Sandusky grand jury report, A.M. made a false statement that the slapping sounds (heard by McQueary) were from him slapping the walls and slapping towels.   A.M. recanted this statement during a March 16, 2012 interview when he told investigators that his mother gave him the story and that he went along with it.

Analysis:  A.M. clearly made a false statement about the source of the sounds heard by McQueary.

17.  A.M. stated he was in the locker room the night of the incident because he heard a locker room door close.   He also stated that he had heard the locker room doors close before, thereby negating that the sound could be the determining factor to prove his presence on the night in question.   

18.   His statement that he did not see McQueary was also compelling evidence that he was not in the locker room on February 9, 2001.  McQueary’s trial testimony of seeing a boy in the locker room was corroborated by the trial testimony of Dr. Jonathan Dranov.  Dranov stated that a boy stuck his head out from the side of the shower and looked at McQueary.  After that, an arm reached out and pulled the boy back. 

19.  A.M.'s statement that Sandusky called or spoke to him that week of the incident and told him that they were seen in the locker room by McQueary is not supported by the evidence.  PSU Athletic Director, Timothy Curley did not tell Sandusky who observed him and A.M. in the showers.   E-mail evidence from the Sandusky investigation revealed that Curley did not speak with Sandusky until about four weeks after the incident (on March 7, 2001).  

20.  A.M.'s drawing of the locker room was the most compelling evidence that he was NOT the person with Sandusky in the Lasch building on February 9, 2001. The drawing simply didn't come close to matching reality. 

Analysis: The diagram reveals that A.M. was never in the Lasch Building Staff Locker Room on February 9, 2001 or any other time.


Sandusky's legal claim that Joe McGettigan believed A.M. to be V2 is not supported by the evidence.  McGettigan had a legitimate evidentiary basis to determine A.M. was not in the shower with Sandusky on February 9, 2001.  

[1] Lanning, K.V., Child Molesters:  A Behavioral Analysis, page 75. 
[2] Abel GG, Becker JV, Mittelman M, Cunningham-Rathner J, Rouleau JL, Murphy WD. Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. J Interpers Violence. 1987;2:3-25

Monday, October 31

Analysis: Old Main's Costly Charade Continues

PSU's attorneys could have easily beat McQueary's misrepresentation and claim by using the plaintiff's own words against him -- but instead chose to protect the false narrative of a cover up by the PSU 3

Ray Blehar

While some new information was revealed at the McQueary v. Penn State University civil trial, the bottom line is that at the conclusion of the trial the public knows far more about what Mike McQueary did NOT say to PSU officials than what he actually said.

But that came about before the McQueary trial was held.  

PSU legal representative Nancy Conrad could have defeated McQueary's misrepresentation claim by first pointing out what McQueary did not say, then following that up by citing the testimony of what Mike did NOT do after making his report to PSU officials.

What McQueary Didn't Say
According to the courtroom observers I contacted, McQueary was not grilled about his previous testimony that would have revealed he never told former PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz anything that would have required them to do anything more than ban Jerry Sandusky from using the workout facilities with participants of The Second Mile.  

Statements from McQueary's December 16, 2011 testimony follow:

"I have never used the word anal or rape in this -- since day one." (p. 72)

"I've already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy that I could not see his hands..." (p. 75)

"I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky's hands on a boy's genitals.." (p. 75)

"I would not have used the words anal intercourse."  (p. 81)

"I think it's clear I can't remember the words I used." (p. 102)

To last statement alone is rather important considering that in the case of causing someone to act -- and for individuals to be charged with perjury for their interpretation of what was said -- that the words used are of the utmost importance.  

PSU's legal team could have piled on a similar statement about Mike's faulty memory of what he said in 2001 from his July 29, 2013 Preliminary Hearing testimony.

"..there's no way I could tell you, one hundred percent, the actual words that I used." (p. 25)

The fact that Mike couldn't remember the words he used should have made this case moot -- and it goes back to the reason why there are statutes of limitations on many offenses.  People simply can't be held to reliably testify to things that happened many years ago. 

Again, words matter and it was clear Mike didn't recall using any explicit terms or the specific language in his conversations with Curley and Schultz.

McQueary Satisfied With Curley's Decision
McQueary's original legal claim stated he did not go to the police in 2001 (or thereafter) because he was misled by Curley and Schultz that an investigation had taken place and the actions that he was not aware of the actions taken.  

PSU's legal team would have only needed to cite Mike's testimony that he was fine with the decision made in 2001 to debunk this frivolous claim.

Here is Mike's testimony from page 87 of the December 16, 2011 preliminary hearing stating that he was satisfied with Curley's action to contact The Second Mile.

Finally, Conrad and company could have quoted from page 64 of Mike's July 2013 preliminary hearing testimony to convince the jury that his misfortunes were of his own making.

Why PSU Threw the Case

PSU's legal team intentionally failed to emphasize those  points because doing so would have undermined the very costly false narrative that the University used to remove former President Graham Spanier and the late Joe Paterno and that it has stood behind since November 2011.  

The direct cost of defending the narrative has cost PSU approximately $165 million including:

$8.5 million paid to Louis Freeh for his sham investigation;
$60 million paid out to the state government based on the sham process used by the NCAA to penalize PSU athletics;
$93 million paid to various claimants in the sham settlements in the PMA insurance case; and,
$6.1 million paid to McQueary for its insufficient defense of the Misrepresentation claim. 

As the evidence all along has shown, PSU's decisions in the Sandusky scandal were not made out of panic nor were they due to incompetency.  These were intentional decisions to assist the Office of Attorney General (OAG) in poisoning the jury pool or otherwise convict PSU officials in the court of public opinion.

Monday, October 24



by Barry Bozeman

PART 1 of Not So Common Threads Series

Politics & Religion are touchy subjects when it comes to attempts at unity. That is why I have waited some time to publish this entry. At this point, it has become difficult to see any downside in discussing the connections involved in this series. 

The following "Not So Common Threads" essays consider connections that have not been explored. These connections may be evident to some and less obvious to others. Did certain political interests see Graham Spanier and Penn State climate scientists as an impediment to their plans?  What role did religion play with Louis Freeh when he was hired to do harm to the credibility of your university using the accusations against its football coach, President, and culture? 


My opinion of Opus Dei has been strongly influenced by the film The Breach - about Louis Freeh's FBI and Agent Robert Hansen and The Da Vinci Code with albino numerary assassin Silas and his mentor/handler head of Opus Dei - Bishop Manuel Aringarosa. 

LATE ADDITION: I should have mentioned the Norman Mailer penned MASTER SPY: THE ROBERT HANSSEN STORY a four hour tour-de-force with William Hurt as Hanssen. That time scope gives far more detail concerning Hanssen's strange conviction of his 'intellectual superiority' redeemed he says by his wife who made him convert to Catholicism and pushed him into Opus Dei when she discovered his treason. 

I was introduced to OPUS DEI through those films and once introduced I read as much as I could online about Opus Dei - most of it confirmed my impressions gained from the films 

Opus Dei members have been described as Priests without parishes and vows of celibacy, the most devout of Roman Catholics who seek to do everything in the name of Christ while going through normal daily life in a variety of professions. Robert Hanssen is shown visiting his Priest with his wife and becoming Opus Dei to atone for his "sin" of accepting money for secrets from the Russians.

The scenes of daily life in the Hanssen household -gleaned from family members and visitors are eerie. Hanssen scoffs at a female FBI agent in a pantsuit saying women should wear skirts. He attends Mass daily, prays the Rosary at his office crucifix but secretly videotapes sex with his wife and shares the tapes with a friend in the military. A local strip club and the Catholic Bookstore are common stops and he takes a stripper with him to Hong Kong and purchases a Mercedes for her but never takes her to bed. 

While betraying his country, Hanssen was a devoted to Opus Dei. With the Soviet money, Hanssen put his children through Opus Dei-approved private schools. Hanssen believed that his children “might in the future be part of a holy war that would merge God and country, whose leaders would then ban abortion, divorce and other evils of the world that he and Opus Dei opposed.”   

Opus Dei is known as "the Work of God" or "the Work". FBI Director Louis Freeh is known to be close to Opus Dei. According to Rev Robert Bucciarelli Opus Dei Priest.  Freeh’s children attend Opus Dei schools and Freeh knows Opus Dei members like former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as members of the Work. Scalia’s wife is reported to be an Opus Dei member. So membership and affiliation with Opus Dei is a serious commitment central to the daily lives and worldview of adherents. 

How Freeh's Opus Dei Affiliation Fits 

We all know how this came to be known as the "PENN STATE" Scandal. The Surma co-opted BOT accepted a Presentment by AG Linda Kelley, now known to be a bald-faced lie, as unassailable truth. There are other acts of treason in history that rival 11/9/11, but few so clear cut and egregious as the BOARD OF TRAITORS breach of fiduciary duty represented by that decision. 

We came to learn why John Surma did it.THE SURMA VENDETTA and THE SURMA VENDETTA PART II. None among us can find a valid reason why Surma should not have recused himself from that decision instead of leading the drive to dismiss Joe Paterno after learning of this clear conflict of interest. 

We know about Tom Corbett's UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST and why Corbett and his appointees should have recused themselves or supported Spanier and Paterno as the two individuals who could have commanded enough respect to make the media and the public aware of the facts in the face of AG Kelley's sensationally erroneous presentment and the media tsunami that engulfed Penn State.  

We were even made fully aware of how Louis Freeh was inflicted on Penn State in just one week after that Nov 9, 2011 disaster. A mere 4 hours of interviews of only 2 candidates by the CORBETT, SURMA, FRAZIER, TOMALIS & BALDWIN team were revealed on SMSS. 

        WHAT I MISSED IN NOV. 2011.  

But I missed an article in ESQUIRE that wondered:  
What the choice of former FBI director, Opus Dei running buddy, and cutthroat careerist Louis Freeh to lead Penn State's investigation into itself as regards the Sandusky scandal would come to mean to the people involved. 
It all depends on two factors the writer mused:
1) How often Freeh's finely rehearsed performance-art public morality comes into play; and 
2) What result will be best for Louis Freeh, secular saint, and avenging angel?

As it has turned out Freeh based his entire finding on his self-serving moral superiority. He now admittedly, had no evidence to support his conclusions. It was the "failed culture at Penn State" and an "omnipotent head football coach" indicted and skewered in the court of public opinion over a mere 2 email fragments mentioning "coach"

The Esquire writer now seems downright prophetic with his observations. Freeh pocketed 8.2 million Penn State dollars for trashing the university as a failed culture without ever having to interview the key witnesses to the charges he made or any requirement to justify his results. Freeh was all moral outrage hat with no evidence cattle. 
As Esquire points out: 
"Freeh has a long history of Opus Dei morality. He was the cilice around Bill Clinton's upper thigh because Freeh disapproved of a president having non-Vatican-endorsed sexy time with a young woman. Freeh's FBI railroaded Wen Ho Lee because Freeh was convinced that the Clintons played loose with national security secrets because of Chinese political contributions. Another charge with no basis in fact. 

In 2005, Freeh wrote a book explaining how he, the righteous moralist Louis Freeh, stood alone against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He absolved the FBI of involvement in the framing not only of Lee, whom Freeh still believed to be guilty of espionage, but of Richard Jewell, the innocent man Freeh fingered as the 1996 Olympic Park bomber. 
Freeh was perfect for the heavily Corbett influenced Special Investigation Task Force - an Opus Dei affiliate out to eviscerate non-priest child molesters and redeem the moral standing of his Church in the wake of decades of priest pedophiles. Joe, Graham, Tim and Gary never had the chance for a fair unbiased investigation by this angry righteous Opus Dei scold. A PSU version of Tomas de Torquemada, Freeh would have preferred the rack and wheel ending with a burning stake.   

Freeh's investigation could not be his preferred inquisition but the report would be his sermon as avenging angel striking back against the priest pedophiles who besmirched the reputation of his church. The Spotlight on pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Priesthood was focused by The Boston Globe, Mea Maximum Culpa, Deliver Us From Evil  and the tidal wave of stories across the country exposing priests who were pedophiles.                               CONTINUED BELOW

Friday, October 21

Letter: Put focus where it belongs

I wrote this email in response to a recent PennLive column by Charles Thompson which made the conclusion that Penn State officials failed to report the 2001 incident to police and child welfare.  Thompson did the same on a column he wrote just days earlier and has repeatedly done the same throughout his reporting on the Conspiracy of Silence and related cases.   I wanted to share the email with readers of the blog because it reveals information that Thompson and others refuse to report about the case -- namely, that the Commonwealth can NEVER prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that PSU officials failed to report Sandusky in 2001.  The reason they cannot prove it is because the Pennsylvania child protection system's employees routinely screen out reports of abuse against alleged perpetrators who have been previously cleared.   This is the untold story of the Sandusky case and it is not being told because the media would rather get clicks by writing columns about Joe Paterno than actually serve the public -- and protect children.

You know as well as the rest of the world does that there has not yet been a trial for Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.  As such, you really should stop reporting the charges against Spanier, et al, as conclusions and correctly state them as allegations. 

This sentence of your column requires a correction:

The trio is facing failure to report and child endangerment charges because they did not take McQueary's report to police or child welfare officials.

Please correct to state:

The trio is facing failure to report and child endangerment charges because they allegedly did not take McQueary's report to child welfare officials.

Also, please note that "to police" should be removed from the sentence because the Commonwealth's  August 16, 2016 filing states that Schultz IS a law enforcement official.  

Clearly, by the Commonwealth's definition, Curley, and by virtue of the reporting chain, Joe Paterno, reported the 2001 incident to law enforcement. 

That certainly takes much of the wind out of the Patriot News' and the NCAA's allegations that PSU athletics was involved in a cover up. 

According to the grand jury transcripts read into the record on December 16, 2011, Gary Schultz made seven statements to the effect that he or someone else at PSU reported the incident to child welfare authorities.  Again, this testimony is buttressed by an email from Wendell Courtney (see page 84 of the Freeh Report) stating that he believed someone at PSU reported the incident to child welfare.

As I noted in my email to you yesterday, the Commonwealth cannot disprove Schultz's (or Courtney's) assertions. Nor has the Commonwealth ever brought forth a witness from Centre County CYS, such as an intake worker from 2001, that can positively state a report was NOT made.  Moreover, the Jarrod Tutko Jr. case and the recent report by PA Auditor General Eugene DePasquale buttresses Schultz's argument that a report was or could have been made and "screened out" by child protective services.   

My investigation, in which I spoke with families from Centre County, revealed that "screening out" typically occurred when abuse charges were brought against an individual who was previously cleared by CYS for abuse and who had been awarded custody of a child by the Centre County courts.   

Obviously, those scenarios would apply to Sandusky because he was approved for several adoptions by the courts, including a contested battle over Matt Sandusky, whom he allegedly molested.  Also,  CYS cleared him of wrong-doing in 1998 in a case involving TWO boys and during that investigation Sandusky admitted he had similar contact with others.    

Given the facts above, it would be highly unlikely for CYS to initiate an investigation of Sandusky in 2001 for a similar incident involving a single (unknown) boy.  

Again, look at the Tutko case.  Numerous calls from neighbors, emergency room personnel, and teachers in which Dauphin CYS ignored -- resulting in a child paying the ultimate price.   Unfortunately, this is typical in Pennsylvania's system.

I understand the Patriot News' desire to continue to promote a narrative of a cover up at PSU because no one ever wants to admit it got its Pulitzer prize winning story wrong.  However, the longer your newspaper continues to focus on PSU, the more that children in PA will suffer because of a disastrous child protection system.

I hope you and your newspaper will do the right thing, start reporting the (inconvenient) facts, and finally put the focus where it belongs.

Ray Blehar