Wednesday, July 18

1998 So Close to an End for Sandusky - Who Interfered and Why?

Be sure to check out how TSM CYS and DPW allowed Sandusky to Roam Freeh before you go.

A SMOKING GUN IN THE FREEH REPORT that focuses on the real reason Sandusky was not discovered in 1998?. This information comes directly from the Freeh Report and a little research. Freeh's investigators got some good information - but did they fail to connect the dots and follow the trail? This is what I discovered - you will have to determine it's value and impact. I hope it is not divisive since it has little to do with the actions or inaction of Joe, Tim or Gary in 2001 and only involves what could have been known in 1998 but slipped away due to a colossal mistake or a hidden hand.

Brief Summary: In 1998 CYS is replaced by DPW in the Victim 6 investigation and in the process A.Chambers damning psychological evaluation is hidden from DPW investigator Lauro. Instead a CYS counselor who worked with The Second Mile gives a "pedophile free" evaluation over the objection of DA Arnold to Lauro who advises Gricar to close the case. Sandusky goes undiscovered. Sounds downright Machiavellian but the Freeh Report reveals that's what happened. Ironic isn't it? Freeh could have actually cleared Joe and PSU and discovered the real reason that Sandusky was not found out in 1998? 

The Second Mile may be up to their necks in this but we will likely never know what they knew. The organizations assets and likely all their files and computers have been taken by Arrow Ministries of Houston headed by a Republican who hails from central Pennsylvania and is close personally with the Governor and other prominent PA Republicans. Arrow Foundation Ministry  and  Arrow to take over Second Mile  see second item down the list 
.
One question that remains for everyone should be this: If Mike McQueary was so convinced he had witnessed anal intercourse why did he do nothing for a decade? And why have we not heard more about The Second Mile? Why would he allow Second Mile children to remain in danger if he thought Sandusky was a child rapist? That does not sound like Mike does it? 
.
Mike could have spoken to Dr. Raykovitz or a Second Mile officer at one of the Second Mile functions on campus. He could have sent an email or made an anonymous telephone call. Mike was never told not to talk about it and he was the one person who claims he actually witnessed an assault. Surely he would consider those Second Mile kids at risk would he not? So why would Mike be reticent to talk to anyone at The Second Mile? 

Why was Dr. Raykovitz never called to testify at his friend and employee's trial? The Second Mile CEO worked closely with Sandusky for 15 years and he knew about the 1998 and 2001 situations. Why wouldn't the defense call this man who worked with Sandusky for so long who evidently believed he was not molesting the kids he was responsible for protecting? Or why wasn't he called by he prosecution?  Well maybe he did know and did nothing about it but strangely the prosecution and AG are not going after Dr. Raykovitz for his failure to report as a mandated reporter employed by an organization that worked with children. Dr. Raykovitz refused to be interviewed by Freeh and it seems Freeh's group never spoke to anyone at The Second Mile. The woefully abbreviated section in the report is on pages 107 and 108 and mentions no interviews. 
.
Why did the investigation in 1998 get side tracked? Who caused it? Or was it just a terrible mistake? This is a serious question that should be investigated by someone not influenced by PA politicians because someone at the State level had to OK the hand-off from CYS to DPW and someone knew about the Chambers report that could have ended this whole affair before it cost Joe and PSU so much. The Seasock report is what left Sandusky in place at PSU and The Second Mile but only PSU, Joe, Tim, Gary and Spanier got burned because of it. From the Freeh Report Page 43
Detective Schreffler contacted John Miller, a caseworker with Centre County Children & Youth Services (CYS) about the allegation. However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case. CYS had contracts with the Second Mile - including placement of children in 2M residential program & the Second Mile CEO Raykovitz had a contract with CYS to conduct evaluations. The referral sheet from psychologist Chambers indicated the case might involve a CYS foster child. In light of these conflicts, the Dept of Public Welfare (DPW) took over the case on May 5. DPW officials in Harrisburg, PA took the lead because of Sandusky's high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro replacing John Miller.
So the CYS John Miller who knew about Psychologist Alycia Chambers report was replaced because of a "conflict" with The Second Mile. Since Second Mile CEO Raykovitz had a contract with CYS to do evaluations someone there could easily have tipped him or someone in the Attorney General's office off about Chambers Sandusky damning evaluation and the stink it would raise about The Second Mile. Corbett was an early member of the 2M Board along with several other prominent political figures. Would they find it "inconvenient" if this shining star in the 1000 Points of Light was dimmed by this report? Would it launch an investigation that might reflect badly on them and the cash cow that was beginning to generate some significant income and assets while funneling money to certain candidates for high office?
May 4-6, Police Report, Initial Investigation and Psychological Evaluation
On May 4, Victim 6's mother called Alycia Chambers, a licensed psychologist who had been working with her son, to see if she was overreacting to Sandusky’s showering with her son. The boy told Schreffler what happened with Sandusky the previous evening, and added that a 10-year-old friend of his had been in a shower with Jerry on another occasion where Sandusky similarly squeezed the friend. Chambers made a report to the PA child abuse line and consulted with colleagues. Her colleagues agreed that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a ‘loving, special relationship
Wow -note that Chambers uncovered a second victim of a Sandusky shower right then who is never mentioned again. if only Jerry Lauro had known of Chambers evaluation? What would he have done then? Freeh Report Page 43
On May 7, Chambers provided a copy of her written report to Det. Schretfler. Chambers said she was pleased with the response ot the agencies involved, as the gravity of the incidents seems to be well appreciated. Also on May 7, Lauro interviewed the boy's mother. According to Schreffler's notes, Lauro had received copies of the boy's recorded statement, yet Lauro advised the Special Investigative Counsel that he did not have full access to the facts of the case and was unaware of psychologist Chambers’ evaluation. Lauro said that if he "had seen Chambers report, I would not have stopped the investigation", which he thought at the time fell into a "gray" area and involved possible "boundary issues" Schreffler had a discussion with AD Arnold that day as well. Arnold told Schreffer to postpone a second psychological evaluation of the boy until an additional investigation could be completed. Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, as part of DPW’s investigation.
Obviously Lauro would have continued to investigate and certainly he would not have concluded "no criminal behavior"
CYS is a Centre County Organization but DPW Dept. of Public Welfare is state. If someone on the State level wanted to quash a damning psychological examination what would they do and why? Who could cause this take over and why? Or was it just particularly sloppy work by a confused system of conflicting agencies. People don't give Joe Tim or Gary a break for not reporting to these agencies but given this track record would it have made a difference? This mistake was made in error or with help from a guiding hand. Seems like it would be a good idea to find out which does it not?
.
The 1998 situation was so very close to getting to the truth of Jerry Sandusky - if Lauro or Gricar had known of Chambers evaluation and the 2nd "victim" it would have all ended right there but somebody stepped in and because of "conflicts" put the State's DPW in charge keeping Chambers report a secret. It certainly wasn't Paterno or PSU administrators - it had to be someone connected to The Second Mile and the state government. In the final result the conclusions of Jerry Lauro - "there was no criminal behavior" and Seasock - "no pedophile tendencies" were the result of not knowing what Psychologist Chambers had found and that led to a situation where a Head Coach, Athletic Director, and VP for Finance could only be aware that Sandusky was investigated and cleared leading them with good reason to believe his showering with boys was nothing much to be concerned about. Had they known of Chambers and her colleagues opinions it could have made a significant difference. So who changed the agencies and how was that report kept from Lauro? Who gave Seasock the go ahead that led to his "pedophile free:" evaluation?
.
Tom Ridge was the Gov at the time and someone with a knowledge of PA politics will have to get into any connection to The Second Mile or the BOT at PSU. Mike Fisher was then Attorney General and he was preceded by Tom Corbett now Gov. Both Ridge and Fisher were appointed to Federal office by George W Bush. Wonder if there was any relationship to The Second Mile here like there is with Corbett? From the Milton Hershey Protect the Children
Mike Fisher served as AG from 1997 to 2004. One of AG Fisher’s inappropriate activities he failed to investigate and prosecute pedophile Charles Koons even though his molestation of an MHS student had been reported to authorities in the late 1980s. Fisher further exacerbated dysfunction at MHS by his failure to replace self-serving Trust Board members with child care experts. Instead he continued the tenure of some Board members who were part of the problem and appointed non-child care experts to replace those removed from the Board. IS FISHER THE PROBLEM?
Mike Fisher was also the Attorney General when the inappropriate behavior of Jerry Sandusky, State College, PA pedophile, was first reported by the victim’s mother to PSU police in May 1998. The complaint was referred to Ray Gricar, DA of Centre County, PA. Gricar initially assigned the case to Assistant DA Karen Arnold. Gricar took the case from Arnold after two or three days, saying he was going to handle it personally. No charges were filed by Gricar or Fisher against Sandusky. Ron Schreffler, PSU police investigator, helped produce a report about the 1998 Sandusky incident that was referred to Gricar. That report, although highly sought after, is missing.
Hold the presses - Is the real reason for the Attorney General going after Paterno and PSU coming into focus? Who better than a deceased icon to distract attention away from some very powerful politicians with every reason to want the world to focus on anything else but their interference in 1998. Mike Fisher and the Board for the Second Mile are part of a group that secured over $200,000 for the Corbett Campaign while Corbett was supposedly investigating Sandusky. Why did the Chambers psych evaluation never make it from CYS to Jerry Lauro and DPW? Was someone protecting Sandusky and the Second Mile?
" Schreffler had a discussion with Karen Arnold, Centre County prosecutor in the District Attorney's office, that day as well. Arnold told Schreffer to postpone a second psychological evaluation of the boy until an additional investigation could be completed. Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, as part of DPW’s investigation. Counselor John Seasock,opined that "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children." Seasock’s report ruled out that the boy "had been placed in a situation where he was being ‘groomed for future sexual victimization.*
Why did CYS evaluator Seasock go ahead with this evaluation when DA Arnold instructed it not be done? What additional investigation was Arnold having done? Did that stop when Gricar took over? It seems strange that DPW would use a CYS Evaluator after deciding that CYS had a conflict of interest with The Second Mile. Does someone from the state or The Second Mile want to have Seasock's report instead of Chambers go to Lauro at DPW? Is that why Arnold's directive was ignored? Who could arrange that and go over DA Arnold's head?
Joe could not have done this - nor Gary or Tim. This had to come from The Second Mile who used Seasock as an evaluator or someone on the state level who could influence DPW investigator Lauro's use of the Seasock report while concealing the existence of the Chambers evaluation. Or am I way off base here? Was this just a simple oversight with disastrous consequences for PSU and Joe? Why isn't Freeh asking these questions? Why does he not point out this rather obvious reason Sandusky was not stopped in 1998 and why Joe and the others may have believed Jerry to be harmless when it was clear to Chambers he was not?
On May 9, 1998, Schreffler discussed the outcome ot Seasock's evaluation with Seasock. While Seasock said he identified some "gray areas," he did not find evidence of abuse and had never heard of a 52-year-old man "becoming a pedophile." When Schreffer questioned Seasock’s awareness of details of the boy's experience, Seasock acknowledged he was not aware of many of the concerns Schreffler raised but stated Sandusky "didn't fit the profile of a pedophile and that he couldn't find any indication of child abuse.
This counselor Seasock evaluation is completely opposite of psychologist Chamber's evaluation and was a mistake of monumental ill effect for Joe and PSU. If Jerry had been labeled a potential pedophile in 1998 it would have been a minor blip compared to what has happened. He would have been identified as a potential pedophile for those showers in 1998 and closely watched away from The Second Mile and PSU. Perhaps the earlier victims would have been discovered and perhaps not but he would never have been in that shower in 2001 or if he was and Joe, Tim and Gary knew of the Chambers evaluation it would have ended right then for him. If they knew of Chambers evaluation in 98 instead of Seasock's there should have been no hesitation about involving authorities and faith in those authorities would not have been misplaced.
.
DA Arnold didn't interfere in the CYS/DPW investigation or the Chambers evaluation and neither did Joe, Tim or Gary - it had to come from The Second Mile or the State level for Seasock to ever get involved and Seasock's involvement led to the "no pedophile profile" finding that kept key people at PSU from knowing how dangerous Sandusky might be. Had Chambers and her colleagues evaluation been common knowledge it would have made all the difference and if Lauro had known and kept investigating he may have found victim 4 in 1998. If Gricar had left it with Karen Arnold there could have been charges. 
PA lawyers and federal courts (“the good old boys network”) have role in Sandusky scandal
No better context can be set to study the condition of that system than that presented, not only by the Sandusky scandal, but by the role of Penn State and its attorneys in the courts.  The conditions of secrecy and control that led to the Sandusky travesty are ultimately permitted or rebuked by the courts, particularly the federal courts, whose power is immense in regulating cultural and political climates. Mike Fisher appointed to the Federal Bench by Bush in 2003
What about The Second Mile itself? Second Mile President Jack Raykovitz was told about the incident and the ban in 2001, the report says.  Raykovitz, too, never contacted the police although he would be clearly mandated to do so as an employee of a group that worked with children unlike PSU. When Raykovitz testified before the grand jury, he said Curley had merely told him an employee was “uncomfortable” about seeing Sandusky in the locker room shower with a boy, but that an investigation revealed no wrongdoing. “At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the grand jury report,” Raykovitz said in a statement after the indictments. Raykovitz’s statement said the new details “bring shock, sadness and concern,” but said they had no indication any of the alleged abuse happened within charity programs and events. 
.
How odd - an organization staffed with child care specialists trained to spot abuse working with the children abused by Sandusky and headed by a Dr. of Psychology had no indication. Yet we are to believe that Joe Paterno and others at PSU should have known these showers were indications of child abuse? Dr. Jack - when your founder and chief liaison to PSU - a staunch ally and benefactor in your work - is told by PSU administrators that he is no longer welcome to bring boys to work out and shower in PSU locker rooms one would think you would take notice. You are the psychologist and the CEO with the responsibility for the kids - not Joe Paterno, Not Tim Curley and Not Gary Schultz so when your founder is no longer welcome it would seem very careless not to carefully monitor and review his actions and relationships with your Second Mile children would it not? 
    According to the grand jury, then, here is how McQueary’s eyewitness account became watered down at each stage:
  • McQueary: anal intercourse
  • Paterno: a sexual nature.
  • Schultz: inappropriate maybe inadvertent contact with genitals while wrestling
  • Curley: inappropriate conduct or horsing around. 
  • Spanier: conduct that made someone uncomfortable. 
  • Raykovitz: a ban on bringing kids to the locker room.  
In March, Raykovitz said he was assured by prosecutors that The Second Mile and its programs were not targets of the investigation.  Kelly will only say that the investigation is ongoing. However, Gov. Tom Corbett — who as attorney general began the Sandusky investigation — said Thursday night that the new attorney general will look into what The Second Mile knew. Well why has nothing been done on this yet? Why are Attorney Generals of PA not doing their jobs when it comes to predators like Koons or Sandusky? Sandusky should have been and could have been stopped in 1998. If the Chambers evaluation had surfaced with Lauro and she had conducted the official evaluation instead of Seasock the use of showers at PSU would have been stopped and Joe Tim and Gary would have been very alarmed in 2001 because showering with a boy by Sandusky would have been forbidden even if he was not criminally charged or convicted in 1998. 
Here are some things you should know if you are following this case. 
Jack Raykovitz and The Second Mile 
Sandusky retired from the charity in August 2010. Raykovitz has said recently that Sandusky had no contact with children in the program after November 2008, when Sandusky notified them that he was under investigation. But why did he wait until 2008 when he knew Sandusky was banned from bringing kids to PSU in 2001. Why would that not make Raykovits keep an eye on Sandusky and his "activities"? Isn't it at least reasonable to insist that someone find out who authorized Seasock's evaluation and who concealed Chambers along with who engineered the DPW takeover of the case from CYS? If this information was projected as much as the "coach is anxious to know" email there would be a far different opinion of Joe and PSU in the world today.

A hat tip to Michael Collins On The Money Party Website for his link to this post HERE
Michael has some great stuff so put him on your list for regular visits. 


Want to help this effort to set the record straight 
Visit this LINK and Volunteer 


PLEASE MAKE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE FORUM WHERE IT IS SO MUCH EASIER TO DISCUSS JUST CLICK HERE 


37 comments:

  1. Thanks so much for this, Aurabass. As a PSU alum, I appreciate your analysis and willingness to keep digging. Your pieces provide a bit of light in a sea of darkness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If Mike McQueary was so convinced he had witnessed anal intercourse why did he do nothing for a decade?" The case was partly based on eyewitness accounts that occured on university property. It was made clear that PSU employees didn't speak up from fear of losing their jobs. A tyrannical environment will create this type of fear based behavior.

      "And why have we not heard more about The Second Mile?"

      The rapings occured either in Sandusky's home, hotel rooms, PSU facilities... not at 2nd Mile.

      "Mike could have spoken to Dr. Raykovitz or a Second Mile officer at one of the Second Mile functions on campus. He could have sent an email or made an anonymous telephone call. Mike was never told not to talk about it and he was the one person who claims he actually witnessed an assault. Surely he would consider those Second Mile kids at risk would he not? So why would Mike be reticent to talk to anyone at The Second Mile?"

      I'll never understand why none... NONE of the people involved went to the police. Not Paterno, McQuery, Spanier, etc... If McQuery sat down with Paterno and said that he had seen one of Paterno's grandchildren in the shower with Sandusky, Paterno would have called the police or taken some sort of drastic action immediately! That boy was someone's grandchild and deserved the same amount of concern and protection.

      Delete
    2. YOU SAID: The rapings occured either in Sandusky's home, hotel rooms, PSU facilities... not at 2nd Mile."

      I SAY: But Second Mile was where all the kids came from and Second Mile had a staff of childcare specialists who were trained to spot abuse - unlike a football coach, AD, or VP of PSU. CEO Raykovitz was a Dr of Child Psychology and he was informed about the 1998 and 2001 incidents. In fact he was told that his employee and liaison with PSU Sandusky was barred from bringing 2M kids to PSU in 2001. I don't understand how someone responsible for those kids would not make it his business to have his staff and himself seek out boys that JS favored and evaluate them for abuse. He worked closely with these child care specialists for 15 years and they had no idea?

      YOU SAID "I'll never understand why none... NONE of the people involved went to the police. Not Paterno, McQuery, Spanier, etc... If McQuery sat down with Paterno and said that he had seen one of Paterno's grandchildren in the shower with Sandusky, Paterno would have called the police or taken some sort of drastic action immediately! That boy was someone's grandchild and deserved the same amount of concern and protection"

      I SAY: Joe knew and worked closely with JS for 30 years and never believed for a second until 2011 that he could possibly be a pedophile. We all would like to think we could spot that in our closest fellow workers and a coaching staff is like a family -working together very long hours for 6 months on the road, eating, sharing hotels, practice with the team, workouts, showers, everything together. Tim and Gary had the 1998 conclusion from Lauro that no criminal behavior was found and Seasock's report that JS showed no signs of being a pedophile. This and his reputation as an honored by Bush and Santorum for his charity work, his 7 foster children, his church going and history of caring about underprivileged kids seemed as far away as possible from being a pedophile as the 1998 Seasock report confirmed. They just never believed it was possible they could be fooled

      Delete
    3. Thank you AMY. It makes me feel good if what I write helps you feel better about this mess.

      Delete
    4. I think you're spot on with Second Mile and political people that are involved here. Did you state that Tom Corbett was a board member at one time of 2M?

      Also, you didn't mention Sandusky's connection to Edward Savitz. Savitz was a Democratic Fundraiser during the 70's and 80's and was a notorious pedophile nicknamed " fast Ed". One of his victims, Greg Bucceroni, stated that Savitz used to attend 2M fundraisers back in the day and was friends with Sandusky

      Delete
    5. Interesting stuff I will have to check Savitz out

      Delete
    6. I came to the same, if not quite as in depth a conclusion as you about '98. 2001 is even more interesting as Freeh works very hard toward proof that Paterno was ringleader/co-conspirator to a cover up, but provides little documentation.

      Part of an email I sent to Sara Ganim follows-

      We have the quote on p.24 from a Curley email, "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno], yesterday." Then he goes on to quote other things from the email such as "we feel there is a problem". However the potentially most damning email is not put into exhibit in Freeh's report.

      Then on p.74 he states that on Feb 27th Curley emailed Schultz and Spanier. This time Freeh does not use quotes, but it reads like an email, "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable....".
      .

      Now what did the actual email say because this is the key to what Joe may or may not have said. In my mind, if it was an agreement between Joe and Tim to alter the plan, he would write "we are uncomfortable". Had Joe been leading a cover up, you'd think Curley would say "he is uncomfortable". Instead, all those "I"s. However, Freeh found it unnecessary to exhibit that email or the actual context of it didn't fit in his theory or opinion.

      There are a series of emails from the 26th to the 27th that Freeh says are in "code" but I can't put my finger on the page numbers right now. If you reread that section, Freeh keeps talking about the email exchange but doesn't provide the exhibits. He however has the "humane" email exhibited twice- p.179 and p.226. Was he trying to insure the impact of that email was not to be missed.

      I hate to see a man with a stellar record for 61 years crucified, but if he deserves it, so be it. He isn't the one being hurt by these allegations, his family is and he can't defend himself. There seems to be a lot to this story that's being hidden from view and perhaps attention being diverted away from that real story.

      Either this series of emails should be made public or a good explanation on why they can't be should be sought. The more you read Freeh's report, the more it looks like a $6.5m opinion piece. That is not what the alumni looked for and not what this case merits.

      -----------------------------------------------------

      I hope Sara or somebody does some questioning and gets this story out of media hype into true investigation.

      Delete
    7. Thanks Jim - appreciate all you do to spread the information

      Delete
  2. PLEASE ADD FUTURE COMMENTS IN THE FORUM SET UP FOR THAT PURPOSE
    LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POST
    IT IS MUCH EASIER TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IN THAT FORUM WHERE YOU CAN QUOTE - LINK - AND ADD COLOR FORMATTING AND EVEN IMAGES.
    http://notpsu.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=9

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. here is the link to Savitz: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/sex-abuse-victim-recalls-horrid-encounter-edward-savitz-associate-jerry-sandusky-article-1.1115909

      Delete
    2. Thanks
      I will get into that ASAP

      Delete
    3. That story shows how much further this thing goes than what we know. Makes a dying football coach a pretty good distraction from some serious faults further up the food chain in political office.

      Delete
  3. Thank you for this analysis. It bothers me that the Freeh report focuses solely on the failings of PSU's Big 4 administrators and not the failure of Chambers' report to reach the proper eyes. (Additional note: Chambers actually consulted with other colleagues which would strengthen her report whereas Seasock's was one single opinion without discussion with a colleague).

    I was wondering if you were troubled by the 1st full paragraph on page 49. Schultz seems to be the most involved in a purposeful cover-up or trending lightly on a charity icon. Also I'm troubled that Harmon didn't enter it in the crime log (page 48).

    After re-reading I think Schreffler had good intentions. He made sure to keep Old Main out of it and he pushed Seasock on whether he understood the full gravity of what the boy said (bottom page 44). What I can't explain is why then Schreffler wouldn't give Chamber's report to Lauro.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the crime log thing may have been appropriate since "no criminal behavior" was the DPW conclusion

      I agree they tread lightly on an honored and respected charity founder - I think that would be expected in light of the DPW conclusions.

      But why did Schreffler not get the Chambers report to Lauro?
      That's the real question I agree.

      Delete
  4. it's not possible to create an account on that site - it's reject me at every turn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. several others are posting there. Can you provide more detail?

      Delete
    2. To Aurabass

      I have questions, assumptions, judgments about Shower 2001 and respect and appreciate your views. I would like to share in a "give and take" with you. Are you interested?

      Mike

      Delete
    3. Mike4949 I will be glad to share a give and take and I suggest we do it HERE http://notpsu.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1&page=1#22

      On a forum I set up for that purpose under the post that states much of my interpretations of the events of Feb 2001.
      Are you the Mike from OP ED news?

      Delete
    4. Mike4949 I have spent months ferreting out the evidence contained in the Perjury Hearing Transcript, Presentment, quotes from news sources (not opinions but the actual quotes) - much of which is reproduced as images on this website.
      and
      I am not particularly interested in statements or opinions that are not backed up by accurate evidence. Things like "it was widely known that Joe knew everything" don't work here.

      I have taken the actual words of Mike McQueary and his various statements under oath as reported in the Presentment, the actual transcript of the Perjury Hearing and reports of quotes from the trial. Along with transcripts of Joe, Tim, Gary, John McQueary and reports of Dr. Dranov's quotes to come up with my considered opinion of what happened that February and the different versions Mike gave to the list above.

      I expect anyone challenging that opinion to be as exact and documented as they can be as well. It would help if you first read through several of the articles on this site that already have my version
      http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/07/let-mikey-try-it-or-mm-dilemma.html
      http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/06/mcqueary-testimonies-and-contradictions.html
      http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/06/morally-bankrupt-psu-jury-hears.html

      These will do for a start.

      Delete
    5. Aurabass

      I could not access any forum with the link you gave. Is there a better way or an easier site to communicate from and with re Shower 2001?

      Mike

      Delete
    6. To Aurabass

      I'm not real computer literate. I'm unable to make the link addresses you listed for McQueary download!
      Thoughts?

      Mike

      Delete
    7. Aurabass

      YOU: "I have taken the actual words of Mike McQueary and his various statements under oath as reported in the Presentment, the actual transcript of the Perjury Hearing and reports of quotes from the trial. Along with transcripts of Joe, Tim, Gary, John McQueary and reports of Dr. Dranov's quotes to come up with my considered opinion of what happened that February and the different versions Mike gave to the list above."

      Your words here speak as well for me too! Can we start a dialogue on this forum? I value your opinions and have queastions to ask and statements to make.

      Mike

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YOUR REPLY IS NOW POSTED IN THE PROPER PLACE

      http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/07/let-mikey-try-it-or-mm-dilemma.html?showComment=1343150802419#c4598639121918775387

      Copy the above line and paste it in your browser window OR scroll up the right side of this page and click on the post titled: I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS AN

      Delete
    2. In other words, let's not actually respond to facts here; instead, let's pretend what really matters is where it's posted, under what heading, and oh by the way here's a few more hoops for you to jump through while I deflect from responding to facts that knock down this house of cards I've built. Hilarious.

      Delete
    3. Moving the comment to where it belongs will always be done here. Don't like it? I don't give a damn.

      Delete
  6. Hey Aurabass, I love your work. I was wondering if you had seen the article I linked below. It seems to completely contradict your assertion that the 1998 switch from CYS to DPW was not orchestrated by PSU, instead stating that PSU hired Seascock and purposely concealed information from Gricar. Just curious what your thoughts on it were and whether you had any rebuttal to it. I'd much rather believe your version but finding out the truth is definitely the most important thing no matter who is at fault. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot to include the link. Sorry! Here it is:
      http://americanfreepress.net/?p=5131

      Delete
    2. I have written Victor to ask for his evidence of that. Appreciate the information.

      Delete
  7. This is hilarious.
    The lengths people will go to in order to defend the indefensible, to protect their icons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what passes for intelligent comment where you exist?
      I feel sorry for you.

      Delete
  8. Just want to praise you for your work at sifting through all of the information. There is so much more to this story than any of us may even be capable of realizing at this time. This site is a great way to help people question the media blitz bullshit being shoved down our throats and ask the real questions that should have been part of the Freeh report. I commend you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you - it takes a lot of time and work to do this.

      Delete
  9. The front page of the University Police Department report says that there was a second boy who had showered with Sandusky and I believe that page 6 has an overview of that interview. Why didn't psychologists interview him as well? Shouldn't two cases of "possible grooming" have gotten more attention than one?

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent question we are also asking.

      Delete
  10. http://protecthersheychildren.org/documents/Essays/the-lambs-and-the-wolves.pdf

    This has some very good cases and links to articles further it, against Corbett and the PA political machine...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is good
      and it is linked and quoted in the article above these comments

      Delete