Thursday, October 11

Media Ignorance and Sensationalism on Display in Alleged Sex Abuse Coverage

Note: This column was written shortly after the news broke of the sexual abuse allegations of Ohio State wrestlers, but was never posted to the blog.  Given the latest sexual abuse allegations and the same inept media coverage, is releasing a slightly edited version of its original column.

The media's sensational columns regarding alleged sexual abuse expose its collective ignorance and smack of sensationalism and hypocrisy. 

Ray Blehar
October 11, 2018, 11:21 AM EST

Sensationalized media reports on the investigation into sex abuse allegations at Ohio State mirrored prior reports by NBCNews and the New York Times revealing the ignorance and hypocrisy of the media who covered the Larry Nassar case.

While ESPN, NBC, the NYT and others were on a full out witch hunt to find those at Michigan State University (MSU)  and USA Gymnastics (USAG) who "knew" about Nassar's crimes and "enabled" his behavior, there was not a similar level of gusto in finding out the same at NBC News regarding the alleged serial sexual harassment by Matt Lauer.

Lauer, unlike Sandusky and Nassar, was a seemingly well known harasser at NBC and the breaking news of his misdeeds did not come as a surprise to some of his co-workers.  That stands in stark contrast to Nassar and Sandusky, whose criminal allegations shocked everyone who knew them.

While Nassar's and Sandusky's crimes led to the ouster of high ranking officials at both Universities, Lauer's acts did not result in similar firings at NBC or its news division -- nor was the media out to publicly lynch any of the officials there.

Interesting that when the shoe is on the other foot, the "crimes" are isolated to the criminal...and that applies to others in the entertainment industry as well.

Monday, September 10

Ray Blehar segment on This Week in Pennsylvania, September 9, 2018

Many thanks to anchor/reporter Dennis Owens for keeping attention focused on The Second Mile (TSM).

I will briefly appear in a follow up segment about TSM's former Executive Director, Dr. Jack Raykovitz.

Wednesday, August 8

McQueary & More Evidence of Corbett's Vendetta

Mike McQueary's November 2010 police interview was not in an attempt to find more victims to prosecute Jerry Sandusky.  It was about getting evidence to implicate Graham Spanier.

Ray Blehar
Aug. 8, 2018, 10:26 PM EDT, Updated Aug. 9, 2018, 9:50 AM EDT

Mike McQueary's various versions of the 2001 incident have been examined and re-examined many times over, however, there is one aspect of his story that hasn't received much attention. That overlooked piece of the story critically important to understanding that the Jerry Sandusky investigation was primarily utilized by former Attorney General (AG) /Governor Tom Corbett to carry out a vendetta against former Penn State University (PSU) President Graham Spanier.

To be clear, the investigation and prosecution of Sandusky became "real" only when it became a  prerequisite for taking down Spanier.

McQueary was initially contacted by Agent Anthony Sassano of the Office of Attorney General (OAG)  and Trooper Scott Rossman of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) on November 10, 2010 --
McQueary deferred speaking with them until he could meet with his attorney, Timothy Fleming.   On November 22nd, Sassano and Rossman met with McQueary in Fleming's office, where McQueary gave his initial version of events.

According to Sassano's investigation report, McQueary gave a rather extensive account of what he observed in the locker room.  In particular, he stated that the boy he observed was between 8 and 13 years old and was about five feet high.  Sassano asked if the boy might have been 16 years old and McQueary said definitely not.  McQueary also related that he looked directly at Sandusky and the boy and that the boy had a surprised look on his face.

McQueary Backpedals

The very next day, McQueary submitted a hand written statement to the police that shows he realized he overplayed his hand (i.e., overly embellished what he saw) when giving his original story to investigators.

Tuesday, July 10

Analysis: Is Ohio State another "UVa" (on steroids)?

The evidence in the Ohio State sex abuse investigation points to the media running with a story that was too good to fact check -- just like Rolling Stone ran with its story of a gang rape on the University of Virginia campus

Ray Blehar
July 10, 2018, 8:53 PM, EDT

Here we go again.

Sex abuse allegations at Ohio State University (OSU) have resulted in a (delayed) media onslaught against Ohio State coaches, and specifically, Congressmen Jim Jordan, who "had to know" about and "turned a blind eye" to abuses allegedly perpetrated by former team doctor Richard H. Strauss.

When it comes to reporting about sexual abuse on college campuses, the media seemingly can't separate fact from fiction.  It generally takes whatever the source gives them at face value and runs with it, ruining the reputations of many innocent people in the process.

While the media has already painted the OSU story as another Penn State and/or another Michigan State situation, there are two very critical and important differences that make the Columbus school unlike its conference brothers.

1. Those who were allegedly sexually abused on the campus were adults.
2.  Not a single one of them made a formal contemporaneous report to anyone.

The latter two facts make this case more akin to the allegations of "Jackie," the alleged victim in the UVa gang rape hoax that was reported by Rolling Stone.

And for OSU, the media's "Jackie" is Mike DiSabato.

NBC News and its source

NBC broke the story that Jordan "had to know" based on a video tape given to them by DiSabato.

Note that NBC seemingly had little interest in the investigation when OSU announced it in April.  Similarly, it had little to say when OSU provided an update in early May.

It wasn't until Congressmen Jordan began being featured on the news (with regard to the Mueller investigation) that DiSabato came forward to them with his tape.

The allegations that Jordan "had to know" about Strauss's abuse were too good for NBC to fact-check.

It also didn't bother to look into the credibility of its source.

DiSabato has filed numerous lawsuits against OSU seeking compensation from OSU over licensing of football jerseys (2006) and over use of athletes images (2017).  He and his companies were not overly successful in the lawsuits.

His company, Combat Athlete Coalition, specializes in representing former college athletes in matters of compensation and safety issues.  As such, DiSabato is in contact with many OSU former athletes.

Many former male varsity athletes are coming forward to allege abuse by Strauss.

Are they doing this on their own or were they contacted by DiSabato to come forward?

Finding that out should be on the agenda of Brickler and Eckler, LLP, the legal team hired to  investigate the OSU case.

An email sent by DiSabato to Congressman Jordan, however, seemingly provides the answer:

"I BCC over 250 of my VO BROTHERS WHO WERE RAPED and/or sexual prayed [sic] upon daily under the Buckeye banner which you wanna tie your brand ..." reads the May 6 email, which closes with the phrase: "#RapeCoverUpAWayOfLife."
OSU's lettermen's association is known as Varsity O or VO -- and there is little doubt that they were looped in by DiSabato.

The Accusers

According to the May update from OSU, former male varsity athletes affiliated with cheer leading, fencing, football, gymnastics, ice hockey, swimming, volleyball and wrestling have made confidential reports alleging Strauss abused them. 

As noted earlier, the OSU case is very different from the PSU and MSU cases because those accusing Jordan and other OSU wrestling coaches were adults at the time of the alleged abuse.

They were not young boys who were sexually immature, didn't understand the perpetrators actions, and were groomed into compliance by serial molester - as was the case with Jerry Sandusky.

Nor were they young female gymnasts (and their parents) who were fooled by Dr. Larry's Nassar's phony medical treatments or other young females that Nassar preyed upon as a result of opportunity.

These were adult men who allege that Dr. Richard Strauss was allegedly beyond necessary treatment when they saw him for exams.

And not a single one of them made a formal report on Strauss to the police or anyone else at the time of the abuse.

Neither did "Jackie" at UVa.

Where are the reports?

The first accuser, DiSabato, told NBC that Strauss blackmailed him into compliance by threatening to with hold his medications.   DiSabato also told the media that he put up with it because he was afraid of putting his scholarship in jeopardy.

If that's true, then why didn't DiSabato report Strauss immediately upon finishing his college eligibility -- when Strauss and Ohio State had no leverage over him?

Don't expect the media to ask such a logical question.

DiSabato alleges that the coaches (and Jordan) knew, however no documentary evidence of a report has been found. 

But even more unbelievable is that none of the reports to date have shown that any of the athletes ever told a parent or guardian about their alleged sexual abuse.  Again, this is in direct contrast to PSU and MSU, who received contemporaneous reports of misconduct from parents against Sandusky and Nassar, respectively.

And there's more.

Strauss was formerly employed at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Hawaii, and the University of Washington.

No records of complaints have been found by those schools.

Strauss also worked at two hospitals.

Based on all the reporting so far, there is not a single instance of Strauss ever being reported to an institution where he worked or to the police by anyone.

A statement from Strauss's family said they were "shocked and saddened" by the allegations and the "family seeks the truth."

A former group of OSU wrestling coaches, including former PSU All American and Olympic wrestler Ken Chertow, defended Jordan (and themselves).

"We all worked on the wrestling coaching staff during Jim's tenure...None of us saw or heard of abuse of OSU wrestlers.  If we had heard of any abuse we would have spoken up."

Ironically, eight men who allege abuse say that they want to see anyone who ignored concerns about Strauss held accountable and hope to ensure something similar doesn’t happen to others.


Find a mirror, gentlemen.  

You were adults.  You knew what Strauss was doing.  And you did nothing to stop him and let it happen to others after you departed OSU. 

The sound you hear is this whole OSU story starting to crumble. 

Motivations for a cover-up?

Apparently, the media still doesn't get it.

Serial criminals get away with crimes for years because they are excellent at hiding what they do.  Many say that that serial criminals "hide in plain sight."   It's not that people know about them and don't report them.

Interestingly, the media doesn't have the "everyone had to know" issue with serial killers.

The media never alleged that John Wayne Gacy's or Ted Bundy's or Jeffery Dahmer's neighbors had to know what they were doing.  It seems the "had to know" mantra is reserved for serial sexual molesters.

However, the question remains:  why would OSU wrestling coaches and the administration cover for Strauss?

In the Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nassar cases, there were somewhat plausible reasons concocted for an institutional cover-up.

Jerry Sandusky was a nationally known former defensive coordinator who earned notoriety for coaching linebackers.  For that, he earned the nickname, "the Dean of Linebacker U." Sandusky retired from PSU in 1999 and went on to work full time at his charity, The Second Mile.

The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General alleged that PSU officials didn't report the retired Sandusky in 2001 for fear of hurting the University's reputation.   The NCAA piled on, alleging that PSU didn't report Sandusky in 2001 for fear it might hurt recruiting.

Those might have been plausible if not for the fact that three years earlier, in 1998, when Sandusky was a full-time assistant coach,  PSU did nothing to prevent or influence a police and child protective services investigation.   They let the investigation run its course.  A local DA, with no affinity for PSU, determined there was no basis for charges.  Child protective services determined Sandusky was not a threat or danger to children.

Larry Nassar was a rather famous gymnastics trainer who also was associated with the United States Olympic Team.  MSU touted Nassar's skills when it recruited athletes.  The media attempted to use those facts to allege a cover up by the East Lansing school.

The fact was, Nassar, like Sandusky, fooled everyone around them.  That included the police (twice) and an internal MSU investigation.    No one covered up for Nassar or Sandusky, they simply had no idea that what appeared to be medical treatment or horsing around were actually criminal acts.

The media has yet to come up with a reason or motivation for the cover-up.

In fact, the media has reported very little at all about the life and accomplishments of the alleged perpetrator, Strauss.

Who was Richard H. Strauss?

Dr. Strauss was well regarded in the sports medicine community.

The Physician and Sports Medicine, a journal that he served as editor-in-chief of for 13 years announced his death in 2005, referring to him as an "Icon."

Strauss's obituary similarly mentioned his role as editor of the journal:

"After graduating from medical school, Strauss served as a Navy diving medical officer on a nuclear submarine, completed postgraduate work in pulmonary physiology and became a member of a hyperbaric research team at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. In 1975, he completed his residency in internal medicine at Rutgers University. During his career, he also was a team physician at Harvard University, an editor-in-chief of The Physician and Sports Medicine and a faculty member at Ohio State University, where he served as team physician both for OSU and for the U.S. wrestling team. He also was a member of the medical commission of the International Olympic Committee."

Strauss teamed with two other OSU doctors (Lanese and Malarkey), who were also editors-in-chief of The Physician and Sports Medicine to author a 1993 research paper titled "Decreased Testosterone and Libido With Severe Weight Loss."  The paper was the result of a two year study of collegiate wrestlers and their ability to maintain normal testosterone levels/endocrine function while "cutting weight."   From the abstract:

"A college wrestler's weight, body brief fat, and hormone levels were measured during 2 years of competition. Marked weight loss during the initial season was associated with lower serum levels of testosterone and several other hormones, as well as a decrease in reported sexual activity. All values returned to normal after the season. The following year, with less weight loss, the wrestler had only a transient decrease in testosterone and prolactin and reported no decline in sexual activity. Body fat greater than 5% seemed essential to maintaining normal endocrine function."

Strauss, Lanese, and Malarkey authored a similar paper in 1985 based on a study of amateur wrestlers.  It's summary stated:

"Levels of nine serum hormones, six skin-fold sites, and body weight were measured in 19 male amateur wrestlers during their competitive season and again two months after the season. Percent of body fat was estimated from skin-fold thicknesses. Body weight, body fat, testosterone level, and prolactin level were significantly lower during the wrestling season. Low serum testosterone levels were significantly correlated with low body fat, large loss of body fat, and large weight loss. These findings suggest that the dietary restriction practiced by some wrestlers may affect serum testosterone levels adversely."

Based on the above, it appears that Strauss conducted legitimate research on wrestlers related to testosterone levels and to make a diagnosis of low testosterone a blood test, combined with examination of the size of the male genitalia, the amount of body hair, and other questions related to sexual activity was conducted.

DiSabato wrestled at OSU from 1987 to 1991.

That time frame fits the window for numerous studies of the health of wrestlers and other athletes that were conducted by Strauss and Lanese.

Among the allegations made by wrestlers was that:

"....Strauss fondled them during medical exams and ogled naked young men, sometimes showering among athletes multiple times a day for no apparent reason or perching himself on a stool to stare."

Strauss's behavior, in most respects, appears consistent with the research he and Lanese were conducting at the time.

The "had to know/blind eye" political hit-job 

There is no evidence of a report against Strauss and no alleged motive for covering up his abuse, but the media can't help itself from the narrative it's fallen in love with....

...Congressmen Jim Jordan "had to know" and "turned a blind eye" to abuse.

Just like the media was in love with the narrative that Joe Paterno "had to know" and "turned a blind eye" to abuse.

Many opined the Paterno "knew everything that went on in the Penn State football program."  He was the head football coach after all, they reasoned.

As the facts through the years have revealed,  the Sandusky scandal was a political hit job and the media fell for the outrageous allegation that Paterno was told of  a child being anally raped in the locker room.

That allegation was completely dismantled in December 2011 and further shattered at the Sandusky trial in June 2012.

But they didn't learn their lesson in 2011 and 2012.

Once again, they sucked up a patently false CNN report (in 2017) of a child being told by his foster parents to directly call Joe Paterno -- not the police -- about being raped by Sandusky.  Neither the child or his foster parents called the police to report the rape after he was allegedly rebuffed by Paterno.

What does that say for the media's ability to reason and use common sense?

Even though Jordan was only an assistant wrestling coach, he has name recognition and so he's the one on the hot seat.  Apparently,  Jordan, like the media version of Paterno, was the go to person at OSU to report abuse allegations.

Jordan is also being blamed for not stopping the similarly outrageous (alleged) conduct of OSU faculty members who went to Larkin Hall to masturbate or have overt sex while ogling the wrestlers while in the showers.

Again, why didn't one of the wrestlers report this lewd conduct to the police?  Or say anything about it until now?

The allegations in the OSU case have gone from being akin to UVa hoax to being akin to the McMartin Pre-School case.

What are the chances the media will connect those dots?
Slim to none.

Interestingly, NBC executives didn't face the "had to know" allegations when Matt Lauer was fired for his serial sexual harassment of women there. 

NBC denied allegations from former Today Show host, Ann Curry , who "warned managers about Lauer" in 2012.  Curry also alleged a "pervasive verbal sexual harassment" at the network.

And, it comes as no surprise that NBC's internal investigation found no direct evidence of executives being told about Lauer's misconduct.

No one at NBC turned a blind eye.
No NBC executive lost their job.
There was no sweeping allegations of a "culture" issue affecting NBC.

The investigation at OSU

OSU also hasn't rushed to judgment to condemn the athletics department.  Nor has it made commitments to compensate the accusers or offer them counseling.

So far, so good.

And unlike the sham investigations at PSU, the University of North Carolina and Baylor, it doesn't appear there is a pre-determined outcome.   Moreover, OSU asked law enforcement to assist in the investigation and the Attorney General has offered the assistance of its Bureau of Criminal Investigation.

When the Charlottesville police became involved in the investigation of "Jackie's" allegations, it could find no evidence to support them.

Based on what has become public so far, this looks like UVa on steroids.

Friday, June 29

Court used "tortured reasoning" to uphold Spanier conviction

The Pennsylvania Superior Court bias was revealed when it accepted the OAG's tortured and illogical reasoning to uphold Spanier's EWOC conviction

Ray Blehar

June 29, 2018, 8:58 AM EDT

In a 2-1 decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled to uphold the trial jury's verdict that former Penn State University President, Graham B. Spanier, was guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child (EWOC).   

The panel differed on the interpretation of the statute of limitations for the EWOC charge, with Senior Judge Lillian Ransom charging Judges Victor Stabile and Carolyn Nichols with using "tortured reasoning" to conclude Spanier's failure to report up until Jerry Sandusky's arrest was a continuing act.

Spanier plans to appeal the decision.

Ignoring Evidence & Bias For The Prosecution

In reading the affirming decision, you have to go all the way to page 3 before you realize that the affirming judges were completely in the tank the Office of Attorney General (OAG) and ignored facts in evidence.

Judge Stabile, who wrote the affirming decision and who served as a Deputy Attorney General under former AG Leroy S. Zimmerman, fell into line with the OAG's yarn that  Spanier was fully aware of the 1998 incident and part of developing the original plan to report Sandusky to DPW.

Stabile's passage reveals he (and Nichols) completely ignored the evidence.

Based on the evidence, all of the passage except the first sentence is untrue.

Discussion of 1998 and Spanier Affirmation

Judge Stabile wrote that Spanier recalled the 1998 incident when informed of it on February 12, 2001.  This information is seemingly based on the Commonwealth's tortured and dishonest assertion that the February 12, 2001 note written by former PSU Vice President for Business and Finance, Gary Schultz, somehow memorialized that Spanier was apprised of 1998.

At the trial, Spanier's attorney, Sam Silver, pointed out that the note of February 12, 2001 (shown below) contained no references to Spanier.

Not even former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who conducted the so-called independent investigation into the Sandusky matter at PSU and made several evidentiary leaps in drawing conclusions, made a leap of that proportion.

OAG prosecutor Laura Ditka did. 

And, unfortunately, Gary Schultz, who was testifying with the understanding his sentencing would be contingent on his level of cooperation with the prosecution, went along with Ditka's story.

Regardless, the affirming Judges ignored the plain language of the note and bought the Commonwealth's version that Spanier was informed about the 1998 incident on February 12th and was directing the response.

Spanier In Charge?

Stabile's contention that Spanier directed Curley to keep him informed on February 12th is not supported by plain language of the note either.

At the Spanier trial, Curley testified that he understood the next step after the hallway meeting with Spanier was to speak with Mike McQueary -- an action that is not reflected on the alleged note that summarized the meeting.  

As defense attorney Silver pointed out at the Spanier trial, the last line of Schultz's note states "TMC will keep me posted."  Clearly, the note shows that Schultz was in charge and that Curley had no specific direction to report back to Spanier.

Bias for the prosecution's version of events is the only explanation for Stabile and Nichols' conclusion that Spanier was directing the actions.

The Original Plan - DPW Report Optional

The original plan of February 12, 2001 stated that Curley would meet with Paterno and advise him that he (Curley) would meet with Sandusky on Friday, February 16th.  If the meeting resulted in Sandusky denying that showering with children was an issue (problem) then Curley would advise that PSU should call DPW.  Curley was to keep Schultz posted about the plan.

Obviously, Stabile erred in stating the 3-point plan included discussing the incident with The Second Mile as there is no such activity mentioned in the note.   Also, the note makes clear (as underlined) that contacting the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) was contingent upon Sandusky's response to the meeting with Curley.

It is rather obvious that Stabile and Nichols didn't bother to look at the February 12, 2001 plan and simply reiterated the OAG's false story that there was originally a 3-point plan to speak with Sandusky, TSM, and DPW.

Sandusky Presentment Redux
Judge Stabile wrote that at the February 25th meeting, Curley and Schultz informed Spanier of the report they received from McQueary, insinuating that Spanier was told of sexual abuse allegations.

This passage is every bit as misleading and fraudulent as the Sandusky grand jury presentment's version of events that connoted McQueary told Paterno he saw Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a boy.

The Spanier trial transcripts clearly show that Curley and Schultz testified that they were not told of anything of a sexual nature by McQueary.  Neither man corroborated McQueary's quote that what he told them was "over the line."

There is no evidence whatsoever that Curley told Spanier about his discussion with McQueary and, therefore, certainly none that shows Curley told Spanier on February 25th. 

Schultz's testimony, however, stated that Spanier attended the February 25th meeting and that he thought they "would have reviewed that."  All that said, Schultz remained consistent in that Spanier was only told of horsing around and nothing more serious.

Hindsight Bias Regarding 1998 and 2001

Despite the split decision on the statutes of limitations issue, all three Judges seemingly were stricken with hindsight bias in concluding that Spanier was aware of multiple allegations of sexual abuse.

Judge Stabile wrote (at 24) that Spanier was aware of multiple instances of sexual abuse of minors in 2001.   This reasoning can only be accomplished by misinterpretation of the facts (i.e., hindsight bias). In other words, using the 2012 convictions of Sandusky for crimes in 1998 and 2001 as a basis to conclude that Spanier knew of sexual abuse.

Judge Ransom, in the dissent, wrote (at 8):

First, it is unclear how the judges arrived that Spanier was informed of child abuse at any time during the 1998 or 2001 time frames.   The emails from those years do not make mention of child abuse and not a single person testified to telling Spanier of anything more than horseplay.

Next, it is only through hindsight bias that one can conclude Spanier was aware of sexual abuse in 1998.    The mere fact the 1998 allegations were unfounded and did not result in criminal charges was seemingly ignored by the affirming judges.

Even if you accept the OAG's version of events that Spanier was fully apprised of the 1998 investigation, the logical conclusion drawn is that Spanier, et al, would have considered the 2001 incident to be less serious than the first.

The facts were that University Park police Chief Thomas Harmon informed Schultz in 1998 that Sandusky had admitted to showering with multiple boys, in addition to the TWO that were known about through the investigation.  The police investigation found no criminal wrong-doing.  The DPW investigation found that Sandusky wasn't a danger to children.

Again, using logic, why would Curley, Schultz, and/or Spanier believe the 2001 incident was a criminal sexual act or even child abuse?

Logic is thrown out the window and replaced with hindsight bias.  In other words, the 2012 convictions of Sandusky for crimes in the 1998 and 2001 incidents informed the judges rulings -- not the contemporaneous knowledge of PSU officials.

Unequal Justice

In both decisions, the courts citing and affirming a "common sense of community" and "morality" would be sufficient grounds to recognize and accept an affirmative duty to report and therefore apply the EWOC statute. 

If the Commonwealth believes this reasoning, then why hasn't it brought EWOC charges against Dr. Jack Raykovitz, who not only had an affirmative duty, but a legal responsibility to report Sandusky in 2001 and ensure that the children of TSM were safe.

Tuesday, June 12

No Coincidence, Part 3: The "Luck" of The Second Mile

It wasn't a matter of luck directors and officers of The Second Mile charity managed to escape the Sandusky scandal unscathed.  The evidence shows that protecting the charity was a matter of self-interest for prosecutors, the police, and politicians.

Ray Blehar
June 12, 2018, 8:30 PM EDT

In Part 2 of this series, provided incontrovertible evidence that former Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett's investigators were avoiding The Second Mile (TSM) charity like it was the plague.  That evidence, predominately from the Moulton Report, clearly revealed that investigators didn't approach the charity, referred to by prosecutors as Sandusky's "victim factory," until January 2011.

Corbett played fast and loose with
the facts from the Moulton Report
Regardless, Corbett continued to insist that Sandusky's charity had no influence on the delay in arresting Sandusky.

In late 2017, the former one-term Governor told the Washington Post:

“The Second Mile had no influence on that investigation whatsoever, and there’s no evidence that they did.  But [Penn State alumni] won't accept that, will they?"

Facts are stubborn things and Corbett and the media have played fast and loose with the facts all along, especially those from the Moulton and Freeh Reports.

The truth was that the Moulton Report specifically concluded that there was no "direct evidence that electoral politics influenced any significant or important decision made in the Sandusky investigation."   However, that finding does not address other possible influences regarding TSM nor does it say that politics in general didn't play a role in decisions about the Sandusky investigation.

It also doesn't address rather convincing circumstantial evidence tbat Corbett delayed action on the Sandusky investigation until after he was elected.  Does anyone really believe that the anonymous email tip about Mike McQueary -- sent the day after Corbett was elected -- was just a coincidence?

As the following evidence reveals, self-interest and political interests were a key factor in delaying the Sandusky investigation and avoiding implicating TSM.

What Child Endangerment Really Looks Like

In order to get to the bottom of the Sandusky scandal, you have to get past the nuclear blast that was set off by prosecutors in the form of the November 2011 grand jury presentment's sensationally false version of the 2001 incident.

Tuesday, May 8

Shapiro's Unequal Justice

AG Josh Shapiro's comments and tweets after the convictions of two Johnstown priests confirm there is unequal justice in Pennsylvania

Ray Blehar
May 8, 2018, 9:05 AM EDT

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro's hypocrisy was exposed in the aftermath of child endangerment convictions of two Johnstown priests who supervised the late Brother Robert Baker. Baker committed suicide in 2013 amid allegations he sexually abused scores of children.

Shapiro commented:

“These defendants knew the abuser was a serious threat to children — but they allowed him to engage with children and have access to them as part of his job within their order.  They chose time and time again to prioritize their institution’s reputation over the safety of victims.”
He also added that Pennsylvania law allows for the prosecution of “people in Pennsylvania, not just those who directly abuse children but those who enable it and cover it up.”
Shapiro's words ring hollow as his office has never brought endangerment charges against any of the individuals at The Second Mile who decided in 2009 that Jerry Sandusky would be allowed to continue as the public face and head fundraiser of the charity.
At the time of the decision, the charity's board was informed that Sandusky was under investigation for child sexual abuse and had lost his clearance to work with children.  

Without Fear and Without Favor?

Shapiro contends that his office will enforce the law without fear and without favor, however, the fact of the matter is that ample evidence exists on the public record that Sandusky was continuing to access and abuse children after the charity's 2009 decision.

That evidence is also damning for the Pennsylvania State Police, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (formerly the Department of Public Welfare) and then AG Tom Corbett's AG office -- who did nothing to protect children from Sandusky from January 2009 until November 2011.

However, it goes deeper than that.

Shapiro and other Pennsylvania government officials have been putting the Commonwealth's children in harm's way for years and a real investigation of The Second Mile would have exposed how the "system" approved funding for high risk programs that involved unsupervised one-on-one contact between adults and children.

That officials at The Second Mile were never charged wasn't a matter of luck - it was a matter of self-preservation.

Next:  The "Luck" of The Second Mile Board

Sunday, April 29

Coppersmith Trading on JVP's Image for New Book

PSU Trustee Mimi Coppersmith remained silent when asked if anyone objected to the removal of Joe Paterno as head football coach.  Now she's using an unauthorized photo of the legendary coach to promote her new book.

Ray Blehar
April 29, 2018, at 9:19 AM, EDT

When the new PennStater magazine arrived yesterday, I suspected I'd do my usual quick once through before tossing it in the trash -- until I got to page 98.

At the top of the page is an advertisement for emeritus Trustee Mimi Coppersmith's new book (title has been redacted) that happens to include a picture of her and Joe Paterno in the section titled "Life With Mimi."  

The Paterno family did not authorize the use of the photograph.

The book's promotion by Carolyn Haas alleges that Mimi is "a giver" and "someone of immense heart."

Sure she is (sarcasm).  

People with "immense hearts" always take it upon themselves to trade on the likeness of someone who they wronged so badly -- and then try make it look like they were the best of friends.

Mimi pretended to be friends with Joe and Sue Paterno, but like many others in the PSU community, she was taking advantage of their kindness.  

When push came to shove, Mimi didn't take a stand for her "friends."

She was part of so-called unanimous decision to remove the legendary coach.   In fact, she took a seat front and center for the photo op on the night of his firing.  

Mimi took a seat front and center for Paterno's removal.

She can write 1,000 books if she wants.   

She will be remembered for what she did on 11/9/11, just like the rest of those who wronged Paterno and Penn State University.

That is her legacy.

Tuesday, April 24

Thomas-Yisrael PSU Letterman Clay Shooting Classic

PSU football greats Thomas and Yisreal hosting clay shooting classic on May 18th.

Registration & Sponsorship  Information

Come join us on the farm for some fun competition with food, friends, firearms and Penn State Football Letterman at our Annual Thomas-Yisrael Letterman Sporting Clay Shoot. This is a great event for a great cause. Benefiting American Cancer Society, Central PA Food Bank and Penn State Letterman’s Club.

Tuesday, April 10

Ganim's & Levinson's Lack of Ethics Exposed in Final Scenes

The fact that the final scene of HBO's Paterno shows Ganim fielding a call from the 1976 accuser exposes her work and Levinson's film as unethical. 

Ray Blehar

April 10, 2018, 11:04 AM EDT

In the final fictional scene of HBO's Paterno, crime and courts reporter Sara Ganim (Riley Keough) is shown fielding a phone call from the 1976 accuser in her Patriot News office.  The point of the scene is to convince viewers that Joe Paterno knew about Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse of children for decades and did nothing about it.

While Director Barry Levinson described the movie as a fictional treatment, he also stated that it was based on things that actually happened.  While it is true a complaint was made claiming an incident occurred in 1976, Ganim, Levinson, and HBO's attorneys knew or should have known that the allegation was unsubstantiated based on a statement released by Penn State and other publicly available information.