Friday, July 27

Who Saved Sandusky in 1998? Part I

From Ray Blehar & Barry Bozeman - Exclusive from The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal
The first of a series in which SMSSS will expose who let Sandusky roam Freeh (pun intended) for 14 years.
Freeh’s mission, provided to him by the BOT, was to find of what PSU officials did wrong. That bias resulted in Freeh missing key evidence that shows DPW wanted to shut down the 1998 Sandusky investigation quickly.
The Freeh Report provides exhibits in Appendix 2 that show the flow of information from the University Park Police (Tom Harmon) to Gary Schultz to Tim Curley and Graham Spanier.  While Freeh’s conclusions and statements about this information are provably false (see the Who Is The Liar article), he and his teams most egregious error is not recognizing the most important piece of information in this chain of information.
Again, the reason Freeh and his team didn't find it is because he wasn't looking for it. This error is known as confirmatory bias, where analysts only look for information to support a hypothesis and throw out or ignore information that runs counter to the hypothesis.
This contrary evidence is in Exhibit 2B of the report in the e-mail from Harmon to Schultz just ten days into the 1998 investigation. Harmon relays to Schultz regarding DPW:
"I have been advised they want to resolve this quickly." 
Why would a child welfare agency want to resolve a child abuse investigation quickly?   Are they covering for Sandusky?  Or is somebody else pulling the strings?
The second critical piece of information -- also not put in the proper context by Freeh's team --  is Schultz’s handwritten note on May 5, 1998:
“Is this opening of Pandora’s box”  “Other Children”  

This is horrifying information. 
And when you go back and read Freeh's Executive Summary statement (page 16) stating that PSU officials had "a striking lack of empathy for child abuse," it really makes you sick to your stomach that PSU paid Freeh millions of dollars to conduct this investigation and he completely whiffed on identifying the real people - professional psychologists at DPW -- who KNEW they were closing in on a serial child molester and scuttled the investigation.
It took me less than 5 minutes to do this analysis using the Grand Jury Presentment.  All I had to do was look at the time frames for the testimony of each victim. This results in victims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, B.K., and 10 in the1998 timeframe, allowing for some error in their memory of what year it was. In addition, the grand jury presentment states these boys "were in Sandusky's "circle" and that they "attended tailgates together." This means that in 1998, people who attended Sandusky's tailgates could possibly identify children in the circle.  And it is highly probable - almost a near certainty - that the two mothers of the children investigated in 1998 knew who were in their child's circle of friends. The fact that this investigation didn't go further to uncover the other victims is stunning.
What to do?
One last piece of interesting information from Schultz's 5/5 note is: "local child abuse people meeting at 9:00 today to decide what to do. Either way, casework felt they would interview Jerry."   
Three days into an investigation, with two children claiming they showered with Jerry, and with the knowledge (likely provided by the mothers or others) that there is a circle of boys around Sandusky, they aren't sure what to do next?
Reviewing the history of this scandal, the contemplation of what to do at the local youth charity sounds similar to that of school officials at Central Mountain High School.  When the mother of Victim 1, upon learning of Sandusky's abuse of her son, demanded they call the police, the officials told her to go home and think it over because Jerry had a heart of gold and does a lot of good
Again, how does Freeh miss this? It has to be bias, by design, or willful ignorance.
Shutting it down 
The e-mail to Harmon of 5/13/1998 states that the DPW or the local children's group wanted to resolve the matter quickly. The records indicate only two of the potential seven children in "Sandusky's circle" were interviewed.  Why? 
How could investigators have failed to interview Dr Raykovitz at The Second Mile and his staff to try to determine which other children were "close" with Sandusky and being granted "special favors"? They could then have had qualified child abuse specialists interview a number of 2M children to see if they were troubled by Sandusky's behavior. 
If you appreciate the fact that Dr. Raykovitz and his wife were the recipients of $233,000 in combined salaries from The Second Mile along with the perquisites of being CEO of a well respected charity it becomes easier to see how rationalization - the great good 2M is doing for hundreds - might outweigh any potential harm being done to a few by Sandusky. 
The DPW/CYS claim that the May 8, 1998 evaluation of Victim 6 by CYS Counselor Seasock on May 8, 1998 derailed the investigation. On May 13th and May 19th, the police attempted stings of Sandusky at the home of Victim 6. Neither sting resulted in Sandusky admitting to a criminal offense.  
And now we get to the missing data again.  Where are the psychiatric evaluations of the other boy in 1998 and where were those sting operations?  One theory is that Sandusky's image in the State College community at that time, influenced the DPW/CYS to shut it down upon receiving the answer that cleared him.  Or it could have been that the police did not want to spend resources after being unsuccessful with Victim 6. To know the answer to the latter, you'd have to ask police chief Tom Harmon.
Unfortunately, "Harmon, among others" were excluded from being interviewed by Freeh’s Special Investigative Committee per the request of AG Linda Kelly.  Why?
Who are the others?  Our analysis is that the others are people who will provide information about how Sandusky slipped through law enforcement's fingers in 1998. Since Freeh never even spoke with McQueary, Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Wendell Courtney, Karen Arnold, Ray Gricar or Tom Harmon it becomes impossible to accept his fact Freeh fiction as definitive or complete. So why did Dr. Erickson and the Board of Trustees hand it to the NCAA as the valid investigation of wrong doing by Joe Paterno and Penn State? 

The SMSSS Weblog post 1998: So Close to an End for Sandusky - raised these questions based on direct evidence contained in the Freeh Report: 
1)Who authorized the switch from CYS (Centre Co. Child & Youth Services) to DPW (Pa Dept of Pub Welfare) in the 1998 Sandusky "victim 6" investigation? 
2) Who authorized CYS counselor Seasock to interview and evaluate victim 6? 
3) Who ordered the Seasock interview to be accepted over a Doctor of Psychology's evaluation that was very unfavorable to Jerry Sandusky?
4) Who suggested Louis Freeh to the Board of Trustees for a 6.5 million dollar payday and did they get what they paid for - since his report cost PSU 60 million off the top and untold millions in potential lost revenues. 
The coming posts in this series will supply the answers to these questions and will show that Penn State and Joe Paterno have basically been framed by the Freeh Report.   


  1. A few questions for Ray & Barry:

    What do make of Victim #2 coming forward to sue PSU?

    Do you think Freeh should of put more effort in to investigating Second Mile and the DA / DPW, when his task was look at PSU failures?

    Also, I couple questions that I have had for awhile:
    Could PSU Outside Counsel Courtney openly talk to the Freeh Group if his client, which is PSU, stated that they waive the client-attorney privilege?
    And could PSU make Courtney turn over work product he has on the subject - he billed PSU 2.9hrs for "re reporting of possible child sexual abuse" - Freeh Report, page 23

  2. It would be better to discuss on the forum but
    1) The alleged victim 2 discovery has little or nothing to do with our position. We don't understand his attorney's keeping him out of the trial. Did not want cross-examination?
    2) Freeh's entire report suffered from the bias inflicted by his effort to only investigate PSU. That made him only find and stretch scant evidence to prove some culpability and ignore the exculpatory evidence that led elsewhere.
    3)Don't know enough about the attorney client privilege especially since Courtney represented both PSU and The Second Mile. That's a real mess.

    1. I wished the Freeh report addressed Courtney's client-attorney privilege. If PSU paid for his work, they should be allowed to review it.

      Thanks for the work you put in here and on

  3. The thing is the Freeh group has gotten things wrong in the past and why should we trust them again? He failed as FBI director(Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc) and was removed. He just had another investigation he did for FIFA overturned after he destroyed a guys reputation. I think the Feds or someone with authority needs to get involved. There is some sort of cover up going on here that goes much deeper then PSU. Why hasn't the 2nd Mile been investigated? Why hasn't CYS and DPW been investigated. Why only release select e-mails and not all the e-mails? Since PSU is a fed and state funded school doesn't the freedom of info act apply here? Freeh is connected to people at the 2nd Mile. Rick Struthers who worked at MBNA hired Freeh as general counsel at MBNA until it went out of business. Struthers was on the board of the 2nd Mile. I now want to know what the authors want to know.

    1. The crimes later found out by a Grand Jury, Freeh Report & Email evidence revealed there was no Institutional Control over the Penn State Football Program and the Freeh Report a Non-Criminal Investigation proved it with the Emails and 430 Interviews.
      Moreover, the Lack of Institutional Control was so unique and unprecedented in the History of the NCAA they had to carve out an exception and authorized the President to hand out sanction with approval of the 33 College Presidents NCAA Executive Board Uniramous Approval that demanded it to be necessary.
      The Freeh Report was actually the NCAA Investigation of what went wrong at Penn State not on the Criminal matters of Sandusky being handled by the PAOAG & FEDS, & DOE! Any evidence of crimes was turned over to Law Enforcement.
      All evidence of people at Penn State trying to protect Penn State and disobeying NCAA Compliance Rules were given to Penn State Trustees that included a conclusion that the Trustees were at fault too.
      Once paid for by Penn State and findings adopted by Penn State the NCAA had no choice but to act in a unique way to issue sanctions with such detailed public fi9ndingd backed up with Emails found by Freeh and refused to be turn over by Penn State due to bad publicity.........not children abuse.
      Someday when it is all over, all will agree that NCAA did the right thing, but might have should gone further.

      Until then most are confused!

    2. This post has nothing to do with NCAA Sanctions. This is about how Sandusky was saved from charges in 1998. Try to stick to the subject or be deleted.

  4. Sure many Sports Writers, Sports Lawyers, and Coaches are upset and have been upset how the NCAA operates, investigates, and is slow and unfair on giving out sanctions often years down the road.

    And there is the Hypocrisy of the NCAA enforcing Amateur Rules having players given scholarships as coaches and NCAA Officials make millions off of them.

    But that happens in almost every investigation and that has been done for years.


    You know why they are Sports Writers? They cannot do anything else!

    As for the Sports Lawyers they need publicy and clients and one website where the sports lawyer gave his opinion contrary to the NCAA actually emailed out advertising if you posted anything!

    While the Broadcasters need a subject for that day to talk about and never care what really happens just so they fill airtime!

    The Hypocrisy of Penn State has been proven by the Freed Report and 33 College Presidents of the NCAA executive Committee, but the Hypocrites in Sports Law, Writers and Broadcasters have gone both ways on this subject for the publicity, not for doing the right thing, MirenGoff is proof of it!

    1. If you actually have some evidence to prove these claims I'm sure there is someone somewhere who might like to see it.

      Otherwise this post is about how Sandusky escaped charges in 1998. Stick to the subject or be deleted.

    2. The Freeh report proved nothing. The NCAA & PSU BOT acceptance of the report proves nothing. but that's a different subject from the 1998 investigation that was sidetracked.

  5. Can you explain the personal Schultz notes, that Freeh mentions in his report like, supposedly regarding the 2001 incident:
    - "3) Tell chair of Board of Second Mile 2)Report to Dept of Welfare 1) Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.

    So, if those Schultz notes exist, that Freeh saw, then based on only "Horseplay", they were considering reporting the 2001 incident to the DPW?

    I can't get around that. It doesn't make sense that Schultz would consider going to DPW on only "horseplay".

    Of course, we are not looking at Schultz's notes, only Freeh.

    Your comments.

  6. Wonderful analysis of the situation. I have to ask a farily ridiculous, did Erickson have the benefit of legal advice in this regard before he signed on the NCAA decree? Do we not have a law school on campus? I can't believe any compentent counsel would have recommend he do so for many reasons, not the least of which those you just consisely presented. Signing the decree is effectively an admission of guilt. I am stunned, given the far reaching ramifications of doing so that he would've concluded he should sign the thing and open the door to adoptive admission. And as much as I love the football program, the main threat was not about whether or not it was under the death penalty threat from the NCAA. There are far worse implications for penn State that arise from signing the decree, and I would've used the death penalty threat as the basis for legal action against the NCAA. Given the sheer shoddiness of the Freeh report, and his obvious conflicts of interest in this entire affair, it is inconceivable to me that Dr. Erickson would've opened the university up to such massive legal risks based on simply that report, certainly not prior to any hard analysis of its findings. This whole affair just doesn't make sense, on so many levels.

    I agree that the timing of Victim #2's coming forward is interesting, and that without Penn State's adoptive admission re: the Freeh report, or another investigation or legal battle on the point that establishes Penn States negligence, all the victim's may have had a more difficult time proving that Penn State has substantial libility for what occurred.

  7. This is the link to the Forum where the McQueary Testimony on victim two is located. This is where anyone wanting to discuss victim 2 can do so.

    The post above is about 1998 and that investigation. I have warned everyone above and this is the final warning. You can move your comments to the proper location or I will move them for you and you can continue this discussion there. The Management.

  8. Comments in this thread referring to the recent appearance of someone claiming to be "victim" 2 have been moved to the proper place for that discussion HERE

    You are welcome to continue discussion of this alleged victim 2 at that location.

  9. How did one man almost take down an entire university? How did this happen, really? I applaud your work and I support your search for the truth. I just can't understand why PSU was so involved with TSM. Why did Sandusky have that much influence
    Penn State is and was so much more than football.

    He used PSU and how was he able to do this for so long? That's my question now. I hope the Pa AG (or someone) is looking into this.

    1. Easy - because he founded a Charity that became very well known and supported. He appeared to be everything he was not.

      Of course he did not "bring down the university". That was done by far more powerful entities covering up for their mistakes. Dr. Jack Raykovitz a Doctor of Child Psychology worked closely with this guy and the kids he abused for 18 years. He was the expert. But everyone is blaming a 75 year old football coach instead of him for not knowing what Sandusky was? Don't you find that at least interesting?

    2. He used PSU and how was he able to do this for so long? That's my question now. I hope the Pa AG (or someone) is looking into this.

      The PA Attorneys General are part of the problem and not the solution.
      Joe Paterno worked with Sandusky as a coach for 30 years. That was the sum of his experience with Sandusky who was acclaimed as the DC* (defensive coordinator) of Linebacker U. Joe is not a childcare or abuse specialist. He and the rest of the staff are all about football. Joe was not happy with Sandusky's devotion of time to the charity but he had no reason to think it was cover for nefarious abuse.

      Meanwhile at the Second Mile we have a Doctor of Child Psychology - Jack Raykovitz who worked with JS for 18 years.
      He had a staff of many childcare specialists trained to recognize abuse.
      Penn State is now damned because "No good deed goes unpunished?" - To Joe's and PSU's understanding they were assisting a well known charity. They made facilities available for 2M (second mile) camps and events. For them Sandusky was a PR positive - the coach with the heart of gold. What do you think? JS and pedophiles go around with a scarlet "P" tattooed on their foreheads? How could a MACHO DC of Linebacker U who seemed to be devoting his life to helping kids be a pedophile? How would they know?

      But Raykovitz and the 2M staff worked with these kids and JS and they are trained to spot abusive behavior. HOW COULD THEY NOT KNOW? That's the real question.

      Sandusky fooled a President, Sen Santorum, the upper echelon of PA society who supported 2M with their donations and you think a football coach and staff should not have been fooled? I don't understand it.
      How do you think PSU or JoePa would have even suspected JS when the professionals trained to spot pedophiles didn't?

  10. Seems to me the cover up is at a much higher level. BOT members with an axe to grind with Joepa got their wish. Much of this entire affair makes no logical sense in regards to how it unfolded but the 1998 incident is the total key to the situation and unfortunately the 2001 incident is seen as the damning evidence of a cover up.

    1. It only seems that way to those who are not very familiar with the evidence.
      If it was a cover up it was the dumbest cover up since Watergate.

  11. Any reasonable probability that "they" were the PSU BOT? If not, what are the most likely candidates for "they" in your opinion?

    1. Brian - yes, that could be another possibility.

    2. Stay tuned - we will be getting to that soon.

  12. Someone higher up in DPW ( Lauro`s bosses )possibly derailed the 1998 investigation.

    Lauro is on record stating that " They want this matter settled quickly "...or words to that affect.

    Who is he referring to ?

    1. The "They want to settle this matter quickly" appear in an email from Harmon to Schultz. The "they" is evidently DPW.