Sunday, June 26

Feckless Exhibit 1: Ira Lubert

This is the introduction to a multi-part opinion/analysis series that will highlight some interesting information about current and former members of the Penn State University Board of Trustees.  First up, Ira Lubert.

by BHF23


Introduction

A recent post on the Rivals BWI McAndrew Board described Penn State’s leaders as “feckless.” I had to look it up. First thing I found was “lacking in feck.” For real…which

I thought sounded pretty cool, actually. Don’t know if I ever had any “feck” myself, for that matter. But I digress…

From merriam-webster.com. feckless (adj.): 1. weak, ineffective; 2. worthless, irresponsible.

While there have been many adjectives used to describe the trustees responsible for the damage that resulted in the aftermath of the Sandusky scandal, I decided to see if some of them met the definition.








Exhibit 1:  Ira Lubert

Let’s take a quick inventory on Trustee Ira Lubert...

Was on the BOT at the time of the 1998 incident.

Contributed $50,000 or more to The Second Mile (TSM) for year ending August 31, 2001.

Served on TSM’s Southeastern Board of Directors from 2005-2008, leaving as part of a mass exodus from TSM’s Board about the time the Aaron Fisher investigation began.

Allowed TSM to use his Green Hills facility in Reading for TSM Summer Challenges (camps) until 2008.

Was in charge of the Sandusky scandal related settlements.  A subcommittee was formed 10/28/12, including Lubert, Frazier, Eckel, and others.  Recent court filings revealed that the claims were not considered valid or invalid.  In other words, money paid out without vetting the claims.

Feckless (irresponsible)?  Yes.

The icing on the cake of the settlement fiasco was that claimants were prohibited from suing Lubert's former charity -- TSM.  
 
It is highly probable that with TSM nearing bankruptcy from the scandal that lawsuits may have been filed against its directors or former directors.   Perhaps Lubert was looking out for himself by putting that provision in the settlements -- especially in light of what apparently was going down when TSM used Green Hills. 


TSM at Lubert's Green Hills Camp



 After the Sandusky scandal broke a few media outlets wrote articles about the TSM camp at Greenhills. 


“Rob Lehr, a former camp operator, is speaking out about what he saw and heard.  He rented the camp to the group for a four-week period annually.  The camp has now been sold and Second Mile no longer uses the facility.  Lehr is the former director of a camp in the deep woods of Berks County, where children from the Second Mile would come each summer for several years.”   (foxphilly.com, 11/14/11)

“Lehr said the group crossed dressed one year, and another year had the kids cross dressing:  “Camp counselors cross dressing for one of the evening events with children.  The following year now they [had] some of the boys cross dressing,” he says.  Lehr also said shower curtains would be taken down when Second Mile was at the camp.  He said he never saw anything illegal, but did see things that were immoral and questionable.  (crossingbroad.com11/16/11)

”Lehr has not been interviewed by state investigators on the Sandusky case, but he says if asked he would cooperate.”    ( foxphilly.com, 11/14/11 and here)

Never interviewed.  
Imagine that!  

Also, the video of Lehr's interview was nowhere to be found on the internet.   

Imagine that!

Getting to the Bottom of It

When I read the Freeh Report, I smelled a rat and posted on a Penn State message board to see if anyone wanted to help get to the bottom of it. I live in Georgia. Work for a bank. No connections. Knew precisely jack squat. Almost immediately, I was told that the real story was at TSM. 

I’m no investigator. I’m lucky to remember to put my socks on before my shoes in the morning. Five days it took. Working on it maybe two or three hours a day to start making the connections. 

And no one on the BOT nor Louis Freeh apparently heard anything untoward going on at TSM.

Imagine that?

Tom Corbett…with two stints as OAG (starting in 1995, by the way), responsible for oversight of TSM, buddies with Bob Poole and Bruce Heim…never heard anything. 

Imagine that?

Louie Freeh…having investigated organized crime in the immediate vicinity of Pennsylvania, buddies with Ric Struthers…never heard anything. 

Maybe it’s true; maybe it’s not. 

But there’s no way the state OAG didn’t hear it. 

And there is no possible way that any honest investigation into this mess doesn’t lead pretty quickly to the front door of TSM.

And that brings us back to former TSM board member, Ira Lubert.

·   Lubert was the top gaming industry contributor ($456,000) to political candidates from 2001-2008.  Ed Rendell, who as governor appointed Lubert to the BOT in 2007, was the top receiver (over $1 million) over that same time span (postgazette.com, 6/24/09).  

The Sandusky investigation started when Rendell was governor. 

In the spring of 2009 -- as the case moved from Centre County to the OAG's office, the PSU BOT began making moves to hire its first in-house counsel.  It's not a reach to believe that Lubert was tipped by Rendell and was  among the first people at PSU to know about the investigation -- and likely pulled the strings for the hiring of "feckless" Cynthia Baldwin.

Going back to my investigation.  

Within exactly five days of starting it, I “learned” (to use John Morganelli’s word) that Sandusky situation was part of a wider pedophile ring and that Louis Freeh was hired to cover that up. 

Who is the one PSU BOT member who was/is most likely to have that kind of knowledge (or heard those rumors) about TSM?  

Ira Lubert.

Lubert was on the "move forward" bandwagon --  advocating for it so the OAG investigation would start and stop with the PSU football program and Paterno.  The BOT tried to sell "moving foward" to the PSU community by claiming to save football from the wrath of the Big Bad NCAA.

Most PSU alums didn't buy it and demanded to know more about how TSM escaped the scandal without criminal charges.

And what was the harm in calling for more investigation?  In most people's minds, it could actually clear PSU and put responsibility for Sandusky where it belonged.

After a thorough review, if nothing was found, burn all those innocuous TSM documents and have a weenie roast. 

Knock yourselves out. 

But if you’re wrong…or worse yet, were found to be intentionally covering up that there's even one more “Sandusky” connected to the rat’s nest that is TSM (and I’d bet my last nickel there are plenty), it will be reasonable to conclude that the OG BOT:

-- trashed our university,
-- printed endless stacks of cash for anyone who could spell “PSU,”
-- and labeled every one of us as football crazed, JoePa loving pedophile enablers...


.. all to cover-up that they’re directly involved or somehow beholden to the people who are.  

Thursday, June 23

Andrew Shubin: Not Credible

Andrew Shubin's credibility suffered a serious blow in 2012 when his allegations about an alleged victim were determined to be of his own creation (i.e., lies).   His latest legal filing, as short as it is, has a stunning similarity to his earlier attempt to deceive investigators.

By
Ray Blehar


Shubin: Dismissed as not credible in April 2012.
Evidence from the Sandusky investigation reveals State College lawyer Andrew Shubin, who represented numerous individuals who received settlements from Penn State, was found to be less than credible by government officials.


In February 10, 2012, Shubin had a heated discussion with Office of Attorney General (OAG) Agent Anthony Sassano, demanding that his client (who alleged to be Victim 2) be interviewed as part of the Sandusky investigation.  During the discussion, Shubin claimed that there had been "both oral and anal sex" between his client and Sandusky.

Shubin's client was interviewed by Postal Inspection Service Agent, M. J. Coricelli on February 28th, March 8th, and March 16th, 2012.  At no time during these interviews did his client corroborate Shubin's allegations.  In fact, at the March 16th interview, his client stated that he had never discussed the specific details to anyone -- not even Shubin  (Commonwealth v. Sandusky, PCRA Appendix, page 00447).  







Shubin arranged for a April 4, 2012 meeting with Coricelli and Sassano to interview his client again.  

When they arrived for the meeting, Shubin's client was absent.   Coricelli was told that the client was too upset to be interviewed because of a recent death of a friend.   Then Shubin attempted to provide Coricelli with three typed pages purported to be the allegations of his client.  

Coricelli examined the document and surmised that it was written by Shubin.  After consultation with Sassano, the decision was made that there would be no future investigation regarding Shubin's client.  (Commonwealth v. Sandusky, PCRA Appendix, page 00448)

Recent filing
Shubin's recent filing for a protective order regarding John Doe 71  -- the individual featured in the preposterous story of a 1971 victim written by Sara Ganim -- stating his client can't be interviewed due to health and safety concerns.    Shubin alleged his client has "significant emergent cardiac issues." 

Translation: not diagnosed; no supporting medical records.


This is indeed an amusing argument, considering that his client told his story to a policeman in 2011 (who found it too crazy to be believed), then told the (bogus) story of his alleged victimization to Sara Ganim at CNN sometime in 2015, obviously re-told the story to Shubin at some point, then re-told it again while giving his deposition for the Penn State settlement.   

That's at least four re-tellings since 2011 -- but one more may just cause his client to go into cardiac arrest.

The reality here is both Shubin and his client would go into cardiac arrest if they actually had to face some real questions about the preposterous story that was conjured up about a 1971 abuse incident.

That surely didn't happen when they told it to Penn State's settlement attorneys.




Note: Other instances of dishonesty by settlement attorneys will be highlighted in an upcoming blogpost.

Wednesday, June 22

Upon Further Review: Video and Slide Presentations





Slide presentations from the June 11th, Upon Further Review event have been posted by Eileen Morgan at March4Truth

Eileen Morgan's Presentation  (Birth of a False Narrative)

Ray Blehar's Presentation  (PSU v. PMA Settlement Case)


News coverage from KDKA


PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Former Steelers running back Franco Harris continues his support of former Penn State coach Joe Paterno, and that was evident this weekend.
Harris led a group that is questioning how information from the grand jury ever got to the media. At a gathering, they played dozens of clips showing media reports of the Jerry Sandusky and Penn State sex scandal.
Eileen Morgan, a PSU graduate, believes the media got the story wrong.
“Starting with the birth of a false narrative, and then how the Penn State board of trustees maintained that false narrative, and then when the Penn State alumni and the community came together and started to fight for the truth and expose the lies,” she said.
The group focuses on what it called “misinformation” coming from a grand jury presentment that by law is inadmissible in court.
A Harrisburg attorney and PSU alum focused on the testimony of Mike McQueary that he says the grand jury never *actually* heard.
“It talks specifically about how credible they found Mike McQueary, that McQueary testified credibly, but the people who signed their names to it so to speak, had never heard him. They were given his written testimony,” said attorney Rob Tribeck.
“This is big,” Franco Harris said. “Mike McQueary never saw the sexual act. So where did they get their information? Who was feeding the press their information?”
Harris is still upset the reputation of his coach was destroyed by the story.
“We know Joe. We know the character of Joe, and we know the story. We know what Joe stands for. We know that Joe would never turn his back on a child,” he said.

Thursday, June 9

Franco Harris's Lion's Paw Speech

H/T Anthony Lubrano
JUNE 4, 2016
FRANCO HARRIS’S
LIONS PAW MEDAL
ACCEPTANCE SPEECH 

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them.” Albert Einstein

Welcome everyone…friends…my family…my Penn State family…thank you for being here today.

To the Lion’s Paw…thank you for letting your awardee have a few minutes of free expression…after the last 5 years this is like a breath of fresh air! We have been experiencing quite a time in Penn State history and all of us should learn and grow from it.
When we Penn Staters look back over the last 5 years, the question that loomed over us is “Where are we headed?”

Along the way there were a lot of twists and turns, all with challenges.

But right now at Penn State we are at a crossroad, facing one last big challenge. What direction we take depends on the working relationship between the alumni and the current board of trustees; where we go from here is an inhouse problem…a Penn State problem.

No longer is our biggest challenge about the Freeh Report; everyone knows that was a sham from the start and the basis for nothing.

No longer is our biggest challenge with the NCAA. Everyone knows they broke their own protocols and procedures and had no grounds to penalize Penn State so viciously.

We know they were wrong and they know they were wrong.

No longer do we care about what the media puts out. They have lost their credibility in our eyes. They print allegations and then fan the flames, all without proof or validation and they have no accountability.

On Nov 9, 2011 we saw the results of unchecked power here at Penn State. Beware of power that has no boundaries. Before that night, I did not know that the BOT could fire the President in the blink of an eye. When I heard that President Spanier was supporting Penn State and our Penn State people, I was confident that someone had a command of the situation. Then BOOM! John Surma led the firing of Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno. This made me realize that there were no checks and balances in place…this was unchecked power at its worst.

There were no checks and balances and Penn State lost….and we’ve been losing ever since. And let me point out that not one of those people on the board that night have been held accountable. I take that back, WE, the alumni, held our alumni elected trustees accountable and we replaced every one of them with people who DO represent us.

That night the members of the board thought they could control and contain the damage they were doing, but they could not. And the damage continues to roll across our campus and will continue to roll if we don’t set up some checks and balances.

When you have a small group of people with money and connections and they know how to leverage power, they become detached and arrogant…they are above it all. So now we add arrogance and self-interest to the unchecked power and we have a dangerous situation.

How did we get here???

Where do we go from here? Right now we are divided and we need to start the healing. Where do we start? We start with a formal apology from those board members to Sue Paterno. Now. It’s already long overdue.

Let me tell you a story…

I see a lion’s paw scratching at the ground outside Beaver Stadium and it’s trying to find it’s home…trying to find where it belongs. The lion knows it belongs here but he’s confused…something here isn’t right… something has changed.

The lion knew that our BOT made the decision to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and lawyer’s fees and the Lion knew that our BOT agreed to the sanctions and the vacated games.

But the Lion didn’t know that the BOT also took down Joe’s statue and the player’s wall. That’s why the Lion didn’t recognize his home…they had erased the Lion’s history and his home was empty.

They erased the Lion's history and tried to fill it with lies, lies and more lies. I ask you today, are we a lie? Is our Penn State history a lie? Is Success With Honor a lie?

Success With Honor…

A game changing vision never before undertaken.

It was not just about football or being famous it was about education, contributing to the world and making something of yourself.

It was about having the greatest graduation rates for your athletes and being one of the best in Academic All Americans.

This was unbelievable.

And to top it all off…409! The greatest number of football games won in NCAA history.

So, you better believe that we will fight for our history and we will not let anyone rewrite it for us.

No, this is not right. We know who we are. WE ARE LIONS.

We will erase the lies,

We will claim our home,

We will rebuild our wall because this is our home.

We hope the Paterno family will allow us to put Joe’s statue back in it’s rightful place because this is his home.

People are trying to destroy Success With Honor and everything we stand for, but we will fight for our history. Will you fight with me?

To the members of the BOT:
Yes, right now you have unchecked power—but we know what we must do and we know who must do it. We, the Penn State Alumni, will do it.

We see the goal line and we won’t stop until we cross it.

We have no deadline…and we are coming.


Sunday, June 5

June 11th, Upon Further Review: Video Preview



Please join us on June 11, 2016 at 10:30am for
UPON FURTHER REVIEW

HOSTED BY FRANCO HARRIS  

Location:  The Heinz History Center
1212 Smallman Street
Pittsburgh, PA

John Surma fired Joe Paterno and set the stage for the firestorm that followed.  It fed a media frenzy full of accusations and misinformation; it destroyed lives, a great university and a storied football program.

How do we balance the pace of social media, radio, newspapers and magazines that convince people to believe accusations so quickly and easily without offering any supporting proof or validation?  While it might sound impossible in today’s world, we must find a way to protect due process from unfair and misleading information that pronounces you guilty based solely on allegations; what happened to innocent until proven guilty?  What happened to due process at Duke, UNC and Penn State?

Upon Further Review has taken on the challenge to search for the truth among the misinformation and bogus investigations handed out by the media and to provide a clearer picture of the situation.

Regarding the original information that torched Penn State, much of it has been disproved and a lot of new information has been uncovered.  The information presented at UFR is the result of hard work and serious investigation, always keeping an open mind to finding the Truth. 
We plan to discuss the complex issues of UNC, Duke and Penn State in an easy to understand format.  We do not take these matters lightly as we examine the details and follow the damage to get to the Truth.




“This program is sponsored by Franco Harris and does not necessarily represent the views of the Heinz History Center.”

Monday, May 16

Going "off the grid" for a while

Dear Readers,

I will be fishing in the northern reaches of Pennsylvania starting this afternoon and will be "off the grid" until Friday afternoon.

For those of you who have been commenting over the last week or so, I have gone back to briefly address your comments.

I'll be checking back in to the blog on Sunday.

Regards,
Ray


Sunday, May 15

Upon Further Review: June 11th in Pittsburgh

Mark your calendars for SATURDAY, JUNE 11th!


Upon Further Review
hosted by 
Franco Harris

THEME:  UNVERIFIED

Featuring: 

Bradley Bethel, Director, "Unverified: The Film"
Discusses the unverified report by a UNC tutor that triggered the media firestorm leading to the UNC academic scandal.


Ray Blehar, Analyst and blogger at notpsu.blogspot.com
Breaks down unverified settlement allegations, including 1971 & 1976, that led to more rushes to judgment by the media (and caused PSU to finally defend itself)


Other speakers, topics, and program details to be announced.


Location: Heinz Science Center, Pittsburgh, PA
Date: Saturday, June 11, 2016
Time: 10:30 AM

Friday, May 13

Legal Filing Confims PA Media's Agenda

Today's legal filing by various PA media outlets exposed that the media continues to ignore the facts of the Sandusky case -- because a Penn State scandal sells newspapers.

By
Ray Blehar

As concerned Penn State Alumni and supporters continue our efforts to inform the government, media, and child protection advocates that the focus on our University, the football program, and its former legendary coach will not fix Pennsylvania's broken child protection system, the media confirmed that it is only interested in writing stories that sell newspapers.

Today, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily News, and Philly.com (otherwise known as the PA Corruption Network's media arm -- minus the Pittsburgh Tribune Review) filed to have the records of the Sandusky settlements unsealed.


Their argument, as cited in media reports, exposed that they will not accept the fact (in spite of a Judge's ruling and mounds of evidence) that Sandusky's employment at Penn State was NOT a factor in his commission of crimes against children.   

The media should be the last people on the planet to be making any judgments from the evidence. 

A passage from the filing shown below proves my point follows (my emphasis added):

"Public interest in these proceedings is immense....may shed further needed light on a matter that is of serious public concern - sexual abuse of children over decades by an employee of the largest public university in the commonwealth."

Ruling: No Vicarious Liability
In November 2013, U.S. District Judge Court Judge Anita Brody  dismissed a count of “vicarious liability” against the university, ruling that Penn State cannot be held liable for Sandusky’s acts simply because he was an employee at the time.

Obviously, the legal teams of the Corruption Network's Media Arm must have missed that ruling or simply refuse to accept it.   And they refuse to accept the evidence from the Sandusky case that backs it.

Evidence
Sandusky's crimes continued after he left his employment with the University in 1998 and continued until 2009. There is no evidence of a crime being committed on the PSU campus after 2001 based on the Sandusky Bill of Particulars and the trial verdicts.  Therefore, there is no correlation or causation between his PSU employment, his emeritus status which he retained until 2011, and his commission of crimes against children.

The common thread running through all the confirmed cases of child sexual victimization/abuse from 1996 through 2009 was Sandusky's AND the victim's associations with THE SECOND MILE.  In fact, it's a perfect, positive correlation.

How long can the PA Corruption Network's media arm continue to ignore this?


Media Unfit

While I am all for getting the truth out in the open in the Sandusky scandal, it bears repeating that the media is the very LAST group of people who should be determining the validity of a settlement claim or to evaluate evidence.

This passage of the filing confirms that argument (my emphasis added).

"The information concerning when these acts occurred, the circumstances surrounding them, and the evidence in support of these claims, or lack thereof, must be made public. Allowing these records to be made public will quell rumormongering and unfounded conjecture."

Starting last Thursday night, the media has done nothing but write stories based on uncorroborated information.  The media stoked the rumormongering and conjecture.  Giving the media the information will cause even more of it.

Next, PSU President Barron stated the claims in Judge Glazer's legal filing were uncorroborated.  There was no evidence used in the vetting process.   That was obvious because statements made by claimants after the settlements were inconsistent with their trial testimony.  In other words, the legal team of Feinberg Rozen didn't do the minimum to vet the claims. 

The media also states it must know when these acts occurred and circumstances surrounding them so they can be assessed.  The 1971 story is proof that the media is unable to assess the validity information.  Neither the author nor the media overall revealed the ability to critically think about the allegations made by the phony victim and his collaborator.

1971 Story Not Credible

The allegations made in the 1971 story were only credible to people who had:
1. NO knowledge of the Sandusky trial evidence;
2. NO knowledge of when Sandusky founded THE SECOND MILE charity;
3. NO knowledge of when Sandusky was employed at PSU; and
4. NO understanding of PARENTING.

Point 1: Sandusky was an acquaintance offender.  This is the most important fact ignored by the media.  He befriended his victims. He was not what was known as a "stranger danger" offender.

Point 2: Sandusky formed THE SECOND MILE in 1977.  As such, the phony 1971 victim's claims that Paterno didn't act because of "all the good things" that Sandusky had done doesn't hold water.

Point 3: Given that Sandusky joined the PSU football staff in 1969, was a young assistant in 1971, and had no history of charitable work, the idea that Paterno dismissed the complaint also doesn't hold water.  

Please recall that in 2012, the media believed that Sandusky was forced to retire in 1999 due to the 1998 unfounded child abuse complaint.  So a thirty year assistant gets immediately fired but a two year newbie doesn't.

Consistency? Bueller?  Bueller?

Point 4: No parent, even a foster parent, is going to tell a child who was just raped to call Penn State and talk to Paterno.  When Barron stated the stories were incredulous, this is one of the examples.

Interestingly enough, Ganim's story that broke news of the Sandusky grand jury, that was part of the Pulitzer Prize submission, exhibited an incredible lack of understanding of parenting.  

In that story, Ganim wrote that the mother of a ten-year old boy waited outside the interview room while her son talked to the police -- but then never asked him what he talked to the police about.  

From the article:

"When reached by phone, his mother said she took her son to Penn State police for questioning in 1998 but didn’t listen to the interview. She said she never asked her son what happened."


Her Pulitzer prize pretty much confirms the media has no idea how to evaluate the credibility of stories. 

And the media has no need to in this case.

Allegations neither valid or invalid

In a perfect world, all the rumormongering and conjecture should be quelled by revealing Paragraph 3 of the John Doe A settlement (that states the claims are neither valid nor invalid).







A judge will likely dismiss the media's arguments for disclosure based on that passage alone. 

But it's not a perfect world, and if the media doesn't like the answer, it will continue to pursue the story that it wants.

PSU Cover-Up Not Credible 

The story of a Penn State cover-up and enabling Sandusky's abuse was not credible from DAY ONE.  The evidence didn't support it.

That a full investigation was conducted of the active Defensive Coordinator of the football team in 1998, but was circumvented in 2001 (when Sandusky was retired), for the purpose of avoiding bad publicity is completely illogical.

The evidence also revealed that PSU reported Sandusky outside the University to every authority in 1998 and reported him, at a minimum, outside the University to THE SECOND MILE in 2001. Those facts certainly don't support a Penn State cover-up.

The report of the 2001 incident stopped at THE SECOND MILE and that's where the cover-up occurred.

However, the media knew that there was no BIG STORY  in writing about a cover-up by a charity that was unknown to most people outside of Pennsylvania. 

Public Interest
The Sandusky scandal coverage should have informed the public about the dangers of acquaintance offenders and how to recognize the signs of possible victimization.  Priests, teachers, youth sports, and youth service organization members are all individuals who have access children and victimize them through gaining the trust of their families.  

The person need not be famous or be associated with a top flight college football program to commit acts of child sexual victimization.  All they need is access to the child.

It didn't make a difference that Jerry Sandusky was the defensive coordinator at Penn State in State College or if he was the offensive coordinator at Texas A&M in College Station.  It wasn't his job.  It wasn't the town.  It was his role (and lack of rules) at THE SECOND MILE that provided him with access to children.

The media knows that -- and today's legal filing proves that the media has no interest in telling that story.



Wednesday, May 11

Mission Impossible: Shaming Sally Jenkins

After reading Jenkin's article that Penn State needs to own up for Sandusky, I was so incensed by the errors and the dubious sourcing that I emailed Sally Jenkins some "Sandusky facts" last night.  She didn't respond to the email. 

This morning, l provided her with  my email to Ron Cook to provide additional information.  Still no response.

I didn't find that surprising because in 2012, on two separate occasions I emailed Jenkins detailing the failures of PA DPW and CYS in the Sandusky case AND other cases.  She didn't respond.  

Based on her unwillingness to acknowledge the failures of anyone other than Penn State and for accusing Penn Staters of "blame shifting" when she learned of the failures of child protective services,  I must conclude that Sally Jenkins is a callous individual who would rather let children be abused, raped, tortured, and die, than admit she was/is wrong.

Last night's message follows.
Note: I wrote it from memory, thus I got confused over who attorney Tom Kline represented, thinking he represented Victims 5 and 10.  He represented Victim 5 only.  BTW, the (money grubbing) lawyer for Victim 10 was Joel Feller.



----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ray Blehar <rayblehar@.com>
To: "jenkinss@washpost.com" <jenkinss@washpost.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 6:17 PM
Subject: Sandusky facts



1. Sandusky wasn't convicted of a rape occurring in the showers at PSU.  Simply didn't happen.  Check the trial verdicts.  Not a single allegation by a victim that they were raped in the shower either.  Check the trial transcripts.

2. The 1971 story a complete fabrication to anyone at all familiar with how Sandusky committed his crimes.  Sandusky selected pre-teen boys whom he befriended and groomed them into becoming compliant victims.  By age 15, they had "aged out" of his preferred age group.  Sara Ganim's story of Sandusky picking up a 15 (or 17) year old hitch-hiker doesn't fit the profile.  Moreover, the concept of compliant victimization means there are not forcible attacks on victims.

3. Lawyer Tom Kline's client, Victim 5, gave three different YEARS for the incident at Penn State.  1998 (age 10), 2000 (age 11), and 2001 (age 13).  In his testimony, he stated he didn't know what an erection was.  Which year do you believe it happened?  Kline chose 2001 because he knew it would result in a larger payout.

4. Kline (sic) also represented Victim 10.  Victim 10 testified to coming into contact with Sandusky on five occasions and being inappropriately touched 3 times.  When Victim 10 was interviewed after his settlement, he stated he was like a family member of the Sandusky's.   Kline (sic) stated he was molested dozens of times over 3 years.

5. PA prosecutor Bruce Castor just announced that there is no corroborating evidence that coaches witnessed Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with children in the PSU locker rooms.

6. In 2013, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, Frank Fina, stated he found NO EVIDENCE that Paterno was involved in a cover-up.

That's correct, the lead prosecutor refuted the findings of the Freeh Report about Joe Paterno.  And just recently, the PA AG decided not to appeal the DROPPED charges against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.

It is unfortunate that you feel you can write a story about a case in 2013 (sic), not spend one iota of time on it since that time, then make a couple phone calls to very questionable sources, and think you have the basis for a story.

The salient facts of the Sandusky case are these...

In 2001, Penn State alerted the charity to Sandusky's behavior with a child in the shower in 2001.  The charity, who was responsible for the protection of the children in its care, did nothing.

Most every youth charity has rules in place to prevent one-on-one unsupervised contact between adults and children.  Sandusky's did not.

But that incident should never have happened.

The sad fact here is that child protection case workers, who knew of numerous signs that Sandusky had abused children in 1998, let him go free to continue to pluck children out of his charity.

What should have been stopped in 1998 was not.  And that wasn't Penn State's fault.  And that's not debatable.

Fast forward to 2014.

Jarrod Tutko, Jr. was found dead in a Harrisburg, PA row home -- not far from where Sara Ganim used to write for the Patriot News.

Jarrod was ten years old and weighed 19 pounds at his death. His room was covered in feces.  PA child protection case workers had been to the Tutko home over a half dozen times to investigate abuse complaints.  Like the 1998 case with Sandusky, they turned a blind eye to the abuse.

In four of every ten cases of reported child abuse in Pennsylvania where a caseworker visits a family, the child will suffer further abuse at the hands of the perpetrator.

But Penn State needs to face the up the facts??    Ha!   I think we both know who knows the facts and who doesn't.

The abuse is continuing as I write this because a high profile story about child abuse,  that could have and should have been used to reform the child welfare system in Pennsylvania, demand better training of caseworkers, and demand better oversight of child abuse investigations instead turned into a story about a famous football coach.

I hope you're proud of what you are doing.

Sincerely,
Raymond M. Blehar