Announcing New Partner Site: SanduskyReports.com

Through the generous donation of PSU alum, JR, I announce the launching of Sandusky Reports

http://www.sanduskyreports.com/

About two weeks ago, I was alerted to an opportunity to get some free web site support and who am I to turn down free stuff?  Free beer.  Free food.  It's all good.

I took the opportunity and we have established a reference library of sorts for the topics I have been working on related to the Sandusky Scandal.  

The site has tabs for the six (or more) reports I have done or plan to do in the future.  Tabs 1 and 2 have reports loaded to them, plus related blog posts.  We will continue to add to these tabs as I write more blogs on the topics of child protection and the NCAA.   The remaining tab's reports are in work, however they have been populated with blog posts related to the topics.  Those tabs are:

• Child Protection
• NCAA
• Prosecutions
• The Second Mile
• Board of Trustees
• The Media

Although the new site has a blog attached (not yet active), I will continue to blog from this site and generally populate the SanduskyReports blog with posts from SSMSS.

I hope you find this site helpful when you need to find one of my reports or one of my blogs quickly.

Thanks for your support!

Ray Blehar

More Lies and Contradictions

Watch as the key Freeh report commentators Ken Frazier, Louis Freeh, Karen Peetz, Rodney Erickson, Mark Dambly, and Mark Emmert statements are compared over time and contrasted with those of the authors of the Paterno report: Dick Thornburg, Jim Clemente, Wick Sollers, and Fred Berlin.

By
Linda Berkland

About those pending settlements with Sandusky's victims

The BOT's Rush to Settlements Is Almost As Fast As Their Rush To Judgment

By  

Shari Copenhaver


While there are many reasons for settling lawsuits, any such settlements must be well planned, researched, and have both a legal and moral basis on which to stand for the party making amends. No party should ever be compelled to settle a grievance unless and until that party has been legally proven to bear culpability for the grievances enumerated in the complaint. Unless, of course, that party’s intent is to distract from another issue or to otherwise realize a separate goal.


First and foremost, the Board of Trustees must ensure its fiduciary duty to The Pennsylvania State University. In so doing the Trustees should not only employ non-affiliated experts in the fields of law, negotiation, and investigation, but fulfill their duty to ensure those experts reach truthful, complete, unbiased and legal conclusions and recommendations. It is critical that the Board establish the criteria by which it considers the University liable for restitution in this case, in which the responsible party or parties have not yet been clearly determined. The Board has not yet thoroughly reviewed the facts by which it could make such a determination, since those facts have not yet been fully revealed due to pending criminal trials. The multiple missteps and blunders of this Board over the past 15 months warrant close scrutiny through the collective lens of questioning motive. This latest announced intent to move quickly with victim settlements should create a sense of urgency in the minds of all Penn Staters and concerned citizens.

Questionable decisions by the BOT

Given this Board’s questionable decisions over the past 15 months, a decision which is this potentially costly – in terms of both treasure and prestige – must be undertaken from the outset with nothing less than complete transparency. Virtually nobody who has been witness to the Board’s various meetings since November 2011, has come away from those proceedings with a belief that the Board has been honest and forthright. To the contrary, the majority of the witnesses to these Board Meetings have come away believing its members were far less than honest and open, particularly with regard to the Freeh Report.  In fact, this Board refuses to even take seriously the many legitimate points brought before it.

It is a great concern that the Freeh Report is apparently being used, once again, as the basis for another series of University actions which, like the NCAA sanctions, are simply not proven to have any reasonable degree of merit. Certainly, in the wake of the most recent disrepute of Freeh’s report, the Trustees should be eagerly and insistently demanding a reassessment of Penn State’s legal liability regarding victims of Jerry Sandusky, known and unknown.  It is the Board’s fiduciary duty to protect the income and assets of Penn State University.


We must thoroughly question the direction the Board has taken in response to Freeh’s recommendations. We must also be careful not to confuse changes in governance process with unsupportable actions to make right every fall-out from a scandal which so far has been only loosely, if at all, proven to be associated with the University. There is no compelling and sustainable argument, outside of media opinion spread much like a cancer, to defend any Board action which considers settlement with any victim at this point in time. Settlement, at this premature juncture, is not justified and simply does not best serve the university, the community or the victims.


To date, only one man has been both indicted and convicted of perpetrating crimes against any of the victims who have approached Penn State for compensation. That man is Jerry Sandusky. Three Penn State employees await trial on “allegations” of enabling Mr. Sandusky’s criminal actions. The determination of their guilt or innocence has not yet been made.

Who should be compensated? And How Much?

If those trials take place at some future date, which could be in 2014, guilt or innocence will be determined. At this point, the only evidence of culpability by Penn State is a wholly discredited report prepared by Mr. Freeh, whose reputation has been questioned time and time again over decades. There is simply no evidence capable of convincing any reasonable person that Penn State is culpable for Sandusky’s crimes. A nagging question is “What criteria does the Board intend to use as the basis for a settlement award to a victim with claims of suffering attributable to Penn State University?” Furthermore, “How can the Board even develop a criterion for calculating such an award without full and fair disclosure of all facts with regard to this case?”


Jerry Sandusky’s victims deserve full and proper compensation for the horrors inflicted upon them and for the future trauma they will likely experience as a result thereof. The Board’s approach to granting that compensation, however, is simply not justified at this point in time. There is great disparity in the number of identified victims and the number of potential victims which could be realized once the legal process has been concluded.

A proper and expert analysis must be made before a logical determination can be made of the true victim count. The fact that this process has not been untaken should, in and of itself, set off alarms for all members of the Board. The Trustees have a duty to consider timing, methodology, processes and propriety. Such a pause by the members of the Board should not be construed as being about the victims; as it is rather about the duties inherent upon each member of the Board of Trustees. Again, the victims deserve compensation for the egregious acts carried out against them; but there must be clarity as to how much of that compensation is attributable to Penn State University.

A History of Bad Decisions

It’s blatantly obvious that there is an urgency by the Board to ‘move forward’. Consider what has occurred to date.


• Members of the Board were made aware of the Grand Jury proceedings no later than March 2011. With language which appears to be meant to confuse, the Board claimed it was not actually informed of the details of what had occurred. Ironically, those selected members with knowledge chose not to share that knowledge, however vague it may have been, with the Board at large. The Board’s denial of complete knowledge does not absolve its members of responsibility for University governance. Such is simply not plausible deniability.


• We now know that the dismissals of Messrs Paterno and Spanier were ill-advised and most likely orchestrated largely by one central figure with an ax to grind. See the Surma Vendetta, Part 1, and the Surma Vendetta, Part 2   The Board’s handling of this crisis following the release to the public of information about the indictment appears to have been, by design, an attempt to focus early suspicion toward the motives and intent of those Penn State administrators and away from the motives and intent of the members of the Board. Those actions by the Board, in effect, declared Penn State complicit in enabling Sandusky. The result of that declaration removed any chance of a reasoned approach to fully investigate and review Penn State’s culpability. It also fueled the media frenzy, giving the media members cause to draw and spread irrational, perverse conclusions.


• Although the PSU Trustee’s Executive Committee attempted to keep its contract for investigative services a secret, Trustee Anthony Lubrano was able to locate the document. According to the language in the document, called a “Letter Of Intent”, the Board chose a controversial, high-profile figure, Louis Freeh, to “perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegations of sexual abuse at the facilities and the alleged failure of PSU personnel to report such sexual abuse to appropriate police and government authorities.”


• The report of the “Special Investigative Committee” (a/k/a Freeh Report), initially accepted by nearly every mainstream media outlet, has now been wholly deemed a failure by all but a few (most likely those who never bothered to read and analyze the report).  It appears that Freeh’s team failed to adhere to its’ contractual obligations.  They failed to interview important witnesses – including Messrs Paterno, Curley and Schultz – as well as key 1998 members of the Centre County District Attorney’s Office.  Referring to Freeh, Trustee Anthony Lubrano stated, “He didn’t deliver what he promised us.” Lubrano said, “The Freeh report purports to be the result of something that it is not — a full and complete investigation. As a result, it does a disservice to all those parties it was intended to help — the victims, the university and the community at large.”  Accordingly – and appropriately – Trustee Lubrano has publicly called for a refund of the monies paid to Freeh and his team of laypersons.


• Despite what we were told by the Board when Freeh was first hired, Freeh was not independent and he did indeed have connections to both Penn State and toThe Second Mile (Sandusky’s charity).    Freeh delivered a scathing indictment of only four individual Penn State administrators through a report which has been determined to be incomplete, biased, lacking in scope (subpoena power) and essentially an opinion based on highly questionable conclusions drawn from pure speculation with no supporting evidence.


• The Board has remained deafeningly silent in response to repeatedly requests for a formal review of the Freeh report, yet it presses forward with implementation of the recommendations contained in that discredited and still un-reviewed report.  In stunning displays of arrogance during public questioning at Board meetings, the Board leadership has repeatedly responded to such questioning with responses such as, “Your time is up.”


• The University President has allowed the NCAA to threaten and enact unprecedented and unwarranted sanctions against Penn State on the basis of a report which the Board refuses to formally accept. The Board – to whom the University President reports and answers – has not interfered with, condemned or even questioned the President’s actions.


• The Board has consumed its time with organization designed to implement, without question, the provisions of the report containing recommendations for improved governance of the University, yet it has not accepted that report.  In response to outcries from the University community, the Board has enacted cowardly limitations on dialog with community members. The general membership of the Board is inwardly focused and unresponsive to suggestions or inquiries put forth by concerned members of that community.


• In response to the release of the exhaustive reports by Thornburgh, Berlin and Clemente, experts commissioned by the attorney representing the Paterno family, the Board remains silent. Despite the fact that those experts cast grave doubt on the credibility of the Freeh Report, the Penn State Board Of Trustees has steadfastly refused to question the inaccuracies of the Freeh Report.  

Moving Forward -- To the next bad decision

The Board recently announced its intent to move forward quickly to complete compensatory settlements with up to 30 victims of Jerry Sandusky. The Board’s actions in doing so are being questioned by tens of thousands of members of the University family. In fact, even many members of the public have now begun to question the motives of the Board. The motives of this Board are unclear. The Board’s collective actions over 15-plus months give every appearance its members are hiding additional information. If that is the case, any settlements negotiated could fall flat. Without full and fair disclosure of all pertinent information, there is an inherent risk of the contracts for these settlements being invalidated at some point in the future if additional facts are uncovered.


Without a proper analysis, it is unlikely that the costs for mental health treatment have been properly projected. Likewise, there is a high degree of uncertainty that ALL victims have come forward. As a result, it is virtually impossible to estimate the total cost to the University if it assumes primary culpability for Sandusky’s crimes.


Settlement without full disclosure and knowledge is unacceptable.  That is basic contract law. If, after entering into settlement contracts with the current known victims, it is determined through the criminal trial process that Penn State has little or no culpability, the members of the Board will have committed a huge and irreparable breach of their fiduciary duties to the University. At this point, they would have paid monies to the victims from institutional funds which were not owed by the University.  If it should be determined through those trials that PSU had a greater level of culpability than previously known, the settlements now being negotiated could be invalidated, particularly if it is determined that any member of Board had knowledge which was not disclosed. In either case, the University will suffer additional irreparable harm.  Those outcomes and the possible devious intent by Board members are speculative.  The same, however, is true of the Board’s decision to accept liability.  Simply put, Penn State’s liability is speculative, period.


Penn State’s level of culpability has absolutely not yet been determined. A rush to settle claims by victims without such a determination is unjust and premature. The University’s donors, including Pennsylvania taxpayers, would be well served by the initiation of steps to halt these latest premature attempts by the Board.  In fact, the University’s donors are entitled to have someone step forward to protect their investments in higher education.  Such action could potentially be taken by the Pennsylvania Legislature, the Attorney General or some other government official with appropriate authority to do so.

The Final Rush to Hide the Truth

Penn State’s Trustees are determined to settle with Sandusky’s victims NOW.  It is very common for a settlement contract to contain a nondisclosure clause prohibiting release of information pertaining to that settlement.  If these pending settlements currently being negotiated include such a clause, that creates an alarming situation if any victim could provide testimony critical to the criminal trials of Messrs Curley, Schultz and Spanier, regardless of whether that testimony would help to prove guilt or maintain innocence.  Whether a victim’s testimony would contribute to a conviction or an acquittal, each victim’s testimony – each victim’s horrors – each victim’s story – is relevant to the outcomes of these pending trials.  As such, it is imperative that they not be prohibited from providing testimony, regardless of whether that helps Penn State or hurts Penn State.  In either event, prohibiting the release of all relevant information is detrimental to all sufferers of acquaintance child sexual victimization.  The judicial process is designed to uncover and arrive at the truth, whatever that truth may be. 

Note: Shari Copenhaver did not attend PSU.  She is a Pennsylvania resident who is concerned about the financial mismanagement at PSU.

Press Release: Only 12% of Freeh's Findings Hold Water

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ray Blehar:  Only 12% of Freeh’s Findings Hold Water
Analyst Reveals Freeh Report Provides No Basis For NCAA Sanctions

 FEBRUARY 27, 2013, WASHINGTON, DC --- A little over two weeks ago, the Paterno family’s experts concluded the Freeh Report was full of assumptions, short on evidence, and a complete failure in identifying the methods of “nice guy-pillar of the community” pedophiles.  A new report released today by analyst Ray Blehar not only confirms the expert’s assessments but adds additional details that negate nearly all findings related to the NCAA sanctions.

In the most detailed analysis of the Freeh Report to date, Blehar exposes at least twenty critical errors and omissions that essentially would have left Mr. Freeh speechless at his press conference.  Blehar explained, “Had the Board of Trustees or a legal team reviewed Freeh’s work prior to publication, they would have stricken nearly every finding he discussed at the press conference."

The report analyzes each of the fifty findings related to the NCAA Sanctions.  Each finding is evaluated based on relevant Federal and state laws, evidence, and Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).  The analysis revealed:

·         Six findings substantiated or partially substantiated;

·         27 findings unsubstantiated; and,

·         17 findings not meeting the GAGAS criteria for a finding.

“When the findings from Chapters 2, 4, 7, 8, and 9 were evaluated, the only findings the Freeh Report substantiated were a few pertaining to the Clery Act and to Penn State’s performance of criminal background checks – and I had to relax the standards to accept those findings.”

The report also reveals that Freeh’s team failed to perform basic investigative procedures, such as reviewing the Standing Orders of the Board of Trustees, constructing timelines for various incidents, evaluating the crime scene, and performing checks of phone records.  In addition, the Freeh Report misstated the crimes (based on trial verdicts), incorrectly recounted trial testimony, and ignored exculpatory evidence contained within its report. 

Blehar said, “Had any investigator submitted a report of such poor quality to a competent authority, it would have been flatly rejected and returned for further investigation and rework.”

His report recommends that the NCAA Sanctions be repealed, monies returned to Penn State, and  an independent commission be convened to review all aspects of the Sandusky scandal, to include the investigation conducted by Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General,  and their interactions with the NCAA. 

Blehar concluded, “With all of the trouble the NCAA is facing over its botched investigation of the University of Miami, I believe an independent commission or an expansion of the scope AG Kane’s investigation are good options for investigating the full spectrum of the scandal. ”

Ray Blehar has 27 years of experience as an analyst and investigator.  Blehar has served on the Board of Examiners for the U.S. Senate Productivity and Maryland Quality Awards program.  In this role, he examined the most important aspects of organizational governance, including legal and ethical responsibilities, strategic planning, customer relationship management, operations management, human resource management, and business performance.  Blehar holds certifications as a Quality Improvement Associate with the American Society of Quality and as a team facilitator through the Army Management and Engineering College.  He is currently employed as a senior requirements analyst in Washington, DC.

Blehar’s full report, the second in a series on the Sandusky Scandal, can be accessed at: 
http://www.sanduskyreports.com/report2full.pdf

A summary version of this report is available at:
http://www.sanduskyreports.com/report2media.pdf


RELEASE PERFORMANCE at 11:30AM:  148 media outlets have picked up this story, including Yahoo, Reuters, SF Gate, SacBee, and Boston.com

Did Penn State Officials Know Jerry Sandusky Was a Pedophile Since 1998?

by
Eileen Morgan


If you accept the scathing conclusions drawn by Louis Freeh in his July 2012 report, then
you believe that Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, and Gary Schultz knew that Jerry
Sandusky was a pedophile since at least 1998 and enabled him to continue to molest boys
for over a decade. At the time Sandusky was investigated in 1998, Curley had been AD for
about 4 years, Schultz had been in his position for a similar length of time, and Spanier had
been president for only about two and a half years. These men knew that Sandusky had a
reputation of being a pillar of the community, a caring man who had dedicated his life to
helping young, underprivileged children maximize their potential in life. According to
Freeh, these men also knew that Sandusky used his prestige and celebrity to gain access
into the lives of young, unassuming boys through his Second Mile Foundation. It is there,
where he met and preyed on boys, destroying their innocence, leaving them
psychologically damaged for a lifetime.

Freeh had us believing that these high ranking men of Penn State, Joe Paterno-Head
Football Coach, Tim Curley-Athletic Director, Graham Spanier-President, and Gray SchultzSenior VP of Business & Finance, conspired to cover-up Sandusky’s vile behavior with
innocent children for over 14 years in order to avoid bad publicity and to protect their
precious football program of Penn State.

According to Freeh’s report, these four men knew that Sandusky was investigated for
suspected child abuse in 1998 and, although the District Attorney did not bring charges
after a thorough investigation, these men somehow knew the allegations were legitimate
and that Sandusky was a pedophile. But what were they to do with this knowledge? Since
the DA would not press charges, which would keep the truth about Sandusky out of public
eye, Freeh’s theory suggests that they now needed to band together and cover-up
Sandusky’s sexual molestation of children.

A ‘cover-up’ is defined as ‘a concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous
from becoming public.’ Could it be that these men, from this point forward in mid-1998,
were in ‘cover-up’ mode? Apparently, they needed to conceal Sandusky’s behavior at all
costs in order to protect the football program from bad publicity.

PSU Officials Despised Sandusky

At this juncture, Freeh’s theory would require us to consider the thoughts and attitudes of
these men toward Sandusky after realizing he was a pedophile. A child molester is
probably the lowest form of humanity on this earth. It is doubtful there are any human
beings detested more than a pedophile. Even when incarcerated for their depravity towards children, pedophiles are often harmed by fellow inmates. That is the pinnacle of
hatred. Fellow criminals will not even tolerate the nefarious ways of a child molester. If
pedophiles survive jail time or get a light sentence, they have nowhere to go. They are
completely ostracized from society, despised and given little value as a human being.
Paterno, Curley, Spanier, and Schultz must have absolutely abhorred Sandusky. They
would have had zero respect, zero tolerance, and zero concern for him. And, they would
have wanted nothing to do with him being that they all had reputations for promoting the
well-being and development of children and youth. Not only was Sandusky the lowest
form of life, but, by Freeh’s account, Sandusky now brought them into his sick world, and in
order to protect the football program they had to accept his lifestyle and stand idly by
while he continued to destroy children’s lives while they turned a blind eye.

The Alleged Cover-Up Begins

The first investigation of Sandusky began in May 1998. However, just a couple months
earlier, in February, Paterno and Sandusky began talks about Sandusky’s retirement. So,
within two months of the first talks of Sandusky’s retirement, the four senior officials at
Penn State allegedly became aware that Sandusky was a serial pedophile. Sandusky’s
retirement would have been the perfect way out of this mess. Given the circumstances
and their likely disgust for Sandusky, they would have wanted to distance themselves from
him as far as possible and as quickly as possible. A speedy retirement would have been the
clear-cut remedy.
Knowing the probable mindset the Penn State officials must have had toward Sandusky
and his repugnant behavior, consider the following timeline of events that transpired since
1998. Do the actions of the Penn State officials harmonize with their aversion to
Sandusky? Was there a speedy retirement and a quick disengagement from all contact
with him? Keep in mind that year after year these men were becoming more deeply
involved within their cover-up, Freeh speculates, so they had to protect themselves and
their criminality even more. Incredulously, we are asked to believe that these actions were
indicative of how the four men would have interacted with Sandusky, the man they were
trying to distance themselves from as quickly as possible.

Interactions of Paterno, Curley, Spanier and Schultz with Sandusky

1998 (Page numbers/Exhibits are referenced from Freeh Report)

February 1998
- Paterno made it clear to Sandusky that Sandusky would not be the next head
football coach (p.56) (due to his time spent with Second Mile. (Exhibit 3D))- Curley considered offering Sandusky an Assistant Athletic Director position.
Sandusky declined. (p.56)

May 1998
- Report of suspected child abuse of Sandusky to UP Police, State College Police,
DPW, CYS, DA. (p.41)

June 1998
- DA determined no charges would be filed following a thorough investigation.
(p.50)

1999
January 1999
- Email from Curley to Spanier and Schultz, “I had a good meeting with Jerry
today. He is interested in going one more year (coaching) and then transition
into a spot that handles the outreach program….We need to have Joe in
support.” (p.57, Exhibit 3C)

May 1999
- Sandusky’s letter re Retirement requesting: Second Mile to have an ‘on-going’
relationship with Penn State, Second Mile to have continuing ‘visibility’ at Penn
State, Sandusky wanted ‘active involvement in developing an outreach program
featuring Penn State Athletes’ and wanted ‘ways for him to continue to work
with young people through Penn State.’ (p.58, Exhibit 3E)

- Sandusky also requested a $20,000 yearly annuity in addition to his pension, an
office with telephone, a title reflecting his relationship with Penn State, football
ticket options, access to training and workout facilities, opportunity to run a
football camp, and other options of maintaining visibility with Penn State. (p.58,
Exhibit 3F)

June 1999
- 13th
, Curley emailed Spanier and Schultz that ‘Jerry is leaning towards
retirement if they agree to the $20,000 annuity.’ The email also stated that ‘Joe
did give him the option to continue to coach as long as Joe was coach.’ And
‘Perhaps we could suggest another option of him coaching three more
seasons….Since Joe is okay with him continuing to coach this might make more
sense to all concerned.’ (p.58, Exhibit 3G)

- 29th, PSU finalized a retirement agreement which was agreed to by Sandusky
and PSU on June 29, 1999 which gave Sandusky a one-time lump sum (in lieu of
the yearly $20,000 annuity); football tickets for life; basketball tickets for life;
use of locker, weight rooms and locker room facilities for life; for 5 years,
subject to renewal, Sandusky and PSU agreed to work collaboratively with each
other in community outreach programs, such as Second Mile, and Second Mile
will have occasional recognition in the Beaver Stadium Pictorial and the Penn
State Football Story Show; and Sandusky will have an office and a phone in the East Area locker room complex for purposes of these collaborative
arrangements. (p.59, Exhibit 3H)

- 30th, Curley sought to have Sandusky re-employed as an ‘emergency hire’ for
the 1999 football season. Sandusky was re-hired for 95 days at his existing
salary plus 6% cost of living increase. (p.60)

July 1999
- Curley announced Sandusky’s retirement and said Sandusky ‘will continue to
offer his services on a volunteer basis to the athletic department’s Lifeskills and
Outreach programs.’ (p.108)

- In the same announcement, Paterno praised Sandusky’s contributions to the
University’s football program and said Sandusky was ‘…a person of great
character and integrity.’ (p.108)

August 1999
- University officials agreed to give Sandusky Emeritus Rank. Provost Rodney
Erickson signed off granting Sandusky Emeritus Status. (pp. 60-61)

August-December 1999
- Sandusky’s final season as a Penn State football coach.

NOTE: Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel did not find any evidence that Sandusky’s
retirement was associated with Sandusky’s alleged criminal behavior on May 3, 1998. (pp.
55, 58)
_________________________________________________________________________

Overview of Sandusky’s Post Retirement Relationship with Penn State

1999-2008
- Sandusky operated summer youth football camps at University Park campus
(1999-2008), Behrend campus (2000-2008) and Harrisburg campus (2007-2008).
(pp.105, 108)

- After his retirement, PSU made 71 payments to Sandusky for travel, meals,
lodging, speaking engagements, and camps. Speeches were at American
Football Coaches Association, Penn State Leadership Conference, and a
presentation at Penn State Spring Conference. (p.106)

2000-2011
- Sandusky had regular access to premium season seats in the Nittany Lion Club
for all home PSU football games. (p.105)

2003-2011
- Penn State football staff and players helped Sandusky with his annual Second
Mile Golf Outings. (p.108)
_________________________________________________________________________
2001
February 2001
- Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky alone in the shower with a boy in the
football locker room. (p.62)

- McQueary told his father, John, and Dr. Dranov (omitted by Freeh), who told
Mike to tell Paterno, who informed Curley and Schultz, who informed Spanier.
McQueary also met directly with Curley and Schultz. Curley informed the
executive director of Second Mile, Jack Raykovitz, who told two Second Mile
board members. (p.62)

- Schultz discussed the matter with PSU outside legal counsel Wendell Courtney.
(p.62)

- Schultz and PSU legal counsel Wendell Courtney recollected that Centre County
CYS was informed.(p.84 and p. 213 of Preliminary Perjury hearing transcripts)

- Curley and Schultz discussed, according to an email that was CC’d to Schultz’s
assistant Joan Coble, the possibility of informing Dept. of Public Welfare. (p.73,
Exhibit 5F)

- Sandusky was told by Curley and Raykovitz not to bring children into the
football facility any more. (pp.76-78)

September 2001
- In a press release, Gary Schultz praised Sandusky for his work with Second
Mile. (p. 79)

2008
- Late 2008, Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) reports abuse by Sandusky.

2009
March 2009
- 12th, Attorney General (Tom Corbett) launches his Sandusky investigation.

2010
January 2010
- Investigation is ramped up. PSU subpoenaed for Sandusky’s records. (p. 82)

May 2010
- 14th, Curley wrote a letter of recommendation for Sandusky for the American
Football Coaches Association Outstanding Achievement Award. (p.106)December 2010

- 28th, PSU counsel Cynthia Baldwin was informed that Paterno, Curley and
Schultz would be subpoenaed. (p.82)

- 28th, Baldwin informed Spanier and Schultz. (p.83)

2011
January 2011
- 3rd, Baldwin met with Paterno. (p.83)

- 12th, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz appeared before the Grand Jury. (p.84)

March 2011
- 24th, Spanier subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury. (p.85)

- 28th, Curley and Spanier received word that the Patriot-News was running a
story about the Sandusky investigation. (p.85)

- 31st, Patriot-News ran story about Sandusky investigation. (p.85)

November 2011
- 4th, Charges filed against Curley, Schultz and Sandusky. (p.91)

- 9th, Paterno and Spanier terminated from PSU (p.94)

Do PSU Officials’ Actions Correlate with Freeh’s Depiction?

To summarize, in 1998 the PSU men would have been repulsed by Sandusky and desperate
to disassociate themselves from him immediately. Since, according to Freeh, they were
now presumably covering up Sandusky’s crimes, implicating themselves in criminal activity,
they would have been in all out ‘protective mode.’ But the last thing they would have
allowed, once Sandusky retired, was for him to have unlimited access to the football
facilities. Logical thinking would suggest they couldn’t have taken the chance of Sandusky
committing additional crimes at these facilities, increasing the possibility of exposing their
own cover-up and criminal activity. This would have been much too risky.

Recap of Behavior

Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel did not find any evidence that Sandusky’s retirement
was associated with his alleged criminal behavior on May 3, 1998. If PSU officials knew of
Sandusky’s pedophilia, why didn’t they jump at the chance to firm up his retirement quickly
in 1998? Retirement talks began in February 1998 but did not come to fruition until June 1999, 1.5
years later. Paterno gave Sandusky the option to continue to coach as long as Paterno was
head coach, and Curley and Paterno discussed the option of Sandusky coaching 3 more
years. Sandusky asked for many special retirement perks. If the PSU officials were
covering up for his pedophilia, Sandusky would have had NO negotiating power and his
retirement would have been post-haste. Curley negotiated an emergency re-hire for the
1999 season at Sandusky’s regular salary PLUS 6% cost of living, a very generous offer and
increase for someone he must have loathed if he knew Sandusky was molesting children.
Per the retirement agreement, University officials granted Sandusky Emeritus status and
the men ‘allowed’ the retirement to include unlimited access to the football facilities,
workout room and locker room, the very place Freeh believes they knew that some of
Sandusky’s depraved sexual events frequently occurred.

The PSU officials agreed to an on-going relationship with Sandusky and Second Mile.
Sandusky continued to run camps for young boys at Penn State’s Main Campus for almost a
decade after he retired, was paid for speeches, travel, food, etc. at PSU functions, and had
premium seating for all home football games. PSU football coaches and players
participated throughout the years in Second Mile golf outing fundraisers.

In July 1999, Paterno publicly praised Sandusky and said he was ‘a person of great
character and integrity.’ In 2001, Schultz publicly praised Sandusky for his Second Mile
work. And in May 2010, Curley wrote a letter of recommendation for Sandusky for the
American Football Coaches Association Outstanding Achievement Award.

Do these actions represent actions of men who knew Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile? Do
these actions depict animosity one would have toward a serial child molester, who they
knew had unfettered access to young boys through the Second Mile and who could, at any
time of day, week after week, month after month, year after year, be molesting innocent
boys?

Where Are The Emails and Phone Records?

By December 28, 2010, Spanier and Schultz knew that Paterno, Curley and Schultz were
subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury on January 12, 2011. Freeh discovered a
chain of two emails dated January 10, 2011 between Wendell Courtney and Gary Schultz.
Courtney was giving Schultz a heads-up that Baldwin had called him inquiring about the
2001 incident. (Exhibit 5B) If these four men at PSU had conspired for over a decade to cover-up Sandusky’s pedophilia, there would probably have been a rash of emails and phone calls between
them once they found out they were being subpoenaed to testify about Sandusky. Around
the end of December 2010 and beginning of January 2011 these men would have been
scrambling to talk to one another, to get their story straight, and to review their knowledge
of 1998 and 2001 so that they would be on the same page regarding Sandusky’s behavior.
Freeh found two routine emails between Courtney and Schultz on January 10, 2011. That’s
it. Where are all the other emails between Curley, Spanier, and Schultz? Certainly Freeh
would have discovered numerous emails between these men discussing the subpoenas and
their plan of attack regarding Sandusky and their cover-up. These men were about to have
their presumed 14 year cover-up of a former coach molesting boys on the Penn State
campus blown wide open. This was a five alarm fire. So where are the five alarm fire
related emails?

What about phone records? The Attorney General subpoenaed the men’s PSU office
phone records, as well as their home and cell phone records. Surely there would have
been a conspicuous trail of relevant phone calls between these men who were desperate
to talk to each other so their stories regarding the last 14 years would corroborate with
one another.

In addition, knowing they were complicit with Sandusky’s crimes all those years and
knowing they would probably be facing criminal charges, wouldn’t Curley, Schultz and
Spanier have retained competent counsel who specialized in criminal matters?

Do the lack of emails, lack of phone records, and lack of proper counsel portray the
behavior of men being subpoenaed who had conspired in a child molestation cover-up?

Do their actions represent actions of men who knew Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile since
1998?

No. In reality, the PSU officials’ behavior suggests that they had absolutely no idea
Sandusky was ever a pedophile. Freeh’s most ‘saddening finding’ that Paterno, Curley,
Spanier, and Schultz knowingly allowed Sandusky to molest boys for over a decade is
clearly NOT SUPPORTED by facts, actions, or records.

Chronicle: Should the NCAA's Emmert Step Down?

NCAA didn't interview Miami's AD.  They didn't interview PSU's AD, Tim Curley, either.

Should the NCAA President Step Down?

February 20, 2013, 10:56 pm

By Brad Wolverton

Calls for Mark Emmert’s resignation have grown louder in the past 48 hours, following the release of a report that sharply criticized the association’s investigation of the University of Miami.

On Tuesday the NCAA delivered its long-awaited notice of allegations against the Hurricanes, charging the university with a lack of institutional control for reportedly allowing Nevin Shapiro, a longtime booster and convicted Ponzi-scheme operator, to run wild over its program.

Remarkably, some critics argue, the NCAA failed to interview Paul Dee, Miami’s former athletic director, before issuing the charges. Mr. Dee, who was the university’s general counsel before taking over as AD, died last May, nine months after the NCAA began its official investigation.

Until recently, Donna Shalala, Miami’s president, had been silent on the accusations, which include Mr. Shapiro’s paying tens of thousands of dollars to dozens of Miami football and basketball players, and entertaining them on his private yacht.

But in a statement on Tuesday night, she argued that many of the allegations were unsubstantiated. And she took a swing at the NCAA for failing to speak with Mr. Dee, whom the program reportedly offered up.

“How could a supposedly thorough and fair investigation not even include the director of athletics?” she said.

Link to the full article

Mountain West Conference Questions NCAA and Emmert

Pete Carroll says NCAA "Out of whack."

Analysis: Paterno Not the Most Powerful At PSU

The Freeh Report's inference that Joe Paterno was the most powerful man on campus doesn't hold water.

By 
Ray Blehar

With the amount of time I've spent working on the Sandusky Scandal since July, I haven't taken the time to unpack all the boxes from the move to my new house in late July.  As I went through a box of books the other day, I came across my statistics notebook from grad school, and as a nerd, I started looking at what appeared to be hieroglyphics.  They weren't really hieroglyphics, but the symbols used in the formulas for computing margin of error and confidence intervals.

As is typically the case these days, my mind whirred about how those formulas would be applied to the Freeh Report, and, more specifically, about the 430 interviews that Freeh's team conducted to arrive at his ill begotten conclusions.  More on that later.

Then it jumped to Henry Wray's analysis:

The following examples from the Freeh report further illustrate its use of innuendo or grasping at straws to cast Paterno in a suspicious light:

The report notes that for many years, Sandusky’s office in the Lasch Building was the closest to Paterno’s.

The report states that witnesses consistently told investigators Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew “everything that was going on.”   

The report quotes an unnamed Penn State official who described Curley as Paterno’s “errand boy.”

Analyzing Comments

One of the many things I've done in my career is administer and analyze organizational surveys.  They were not small endeavors, as my organization had approximately 10,000 employees.  In order to do the best job possible, I enlisted the help of the International Survey Research Corporation, one of the world's best at conducting surveys.   Their representative, Dr. Leo Brajkovich, was formerly an offensive lineman at Stanford University and an expert in the field.

As you might expect, comments from 10,000 employees were rather voluminous.  When printed out and placed in a binder it was the size of the Washington, DC phone book.  How do you analyze that many comments?  Well, you bring in experts in organizational psychology and cultural anthropology to read through the "phone book" and develop themes.

Freeh's team did not contain organizational psychologists or experts in surveying.  So, the result was Freeh's team taking a few random comments and characterizing those comments as themes about Paterno's power and Curley's competency as an executive.

The methodology  was obviously flawed, thus the result was flawed.

Sampling and 400

When determining a sample size for a population, the magic number is 400.  For any given population, if you survey 400 people, you can get a valid result at a 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of 5.  Don't believe me?  Go to this calculator and do it yourself.

Freeh's team conducted 430 interviews, but they didn't interview 400 people. Also, it has to be a representative sample of the population.  People were interviewed multiple times and it is unclear whether or not all were asked if Paterno was the most powerful man on campus or if Tim Curley was Paterno's "errand boy."

Breakdown of Interviews

There were 372 interviews used in the report (give or take a few for human error), based on the end notes in the report and the total people interviewed were approximately 98.  Penn State has approximately 44,000 employees.  Freeh's method would have delivered a 6 percent confidence interval (plus or minus) at 95% confidence -- if, in fact, everyone has asked the same questions.

However, from the contents of the Freeh Report, we can determine that certain offices and people were asked specific things about procedures and processes under their purview.  For example, the Outreach Office was asked about access to facilities.  OHR was asked about the background check process.  Ronald Petrosky's answers were specific to the incident that his co-worker, Jim Calhoun didn't witness and, of course, his immense fear of being fired by "President Paterno."

Conclusions

The Freeh Report's statement that 430 interviews were conducted may be true, however less than 430 were used in the report.  The impression that 430 people were interviewed, often repeated by the media,  is incorrect.  As shown, it was more likely that 100 people or less were interviewed.

Also, the sample is not representative, because the BOT makes up approximately 1/3 of the total of people interviewed and, of course, Louis Freeh was the BOT's client.

The determination that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and "knew everything that was going on" is not based on a legitimate analysis of comments.

Finally, I should also mention that the former VP for Student Affairs, Vicky Triponey, wasn't included as an end note, rather, she was a footnote.  Someday, she won't even be that.

Whatever happened with the investigation of the grand jury leaks?

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office couldn't explain how the Sandusky charges appeared on the judicial system web-site.  They promised an investigation.  We still don't know what happened.

By
Ray Blehar

The butler did it.

On November 4, 2011, the Sandusky court docket somehow found its way onto the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System website.  It was apparently removed - at least temporarily - while the AG hustled to put Sandusky in shackles and get him away from children.....after a three year long investigation.

Here's Nils Frederickson:

Nils Frederickson

"The moment we had a grand jury presentment in hand, we began making arrangements to take the suspect into custody," Frederiksen said. "Given the serious nature of this offense it was the direction of the Attorney General that he be taken into custody as soon as possible and not comment on the matter until he was physically in custody."

And while the cops went to round up Sandusky, Nils hovered over his computer, banging out the press release that would establish the narrative for the Sandusky scandal. The presentment was linked in the press release.

While Frederiksen never answered how or why the docket was posted early, by Friday night the presentment was available on the AG's web-site.

Even if they hadn't linked the presentment (or if it was kept under seal) Frederickson's false account was being run across the newswires.  Some of the more fictional parts follow.

Central Mountain High School

Frederickson wrote all about how the folks at Central Mountain High School immediately jumped to action upon the second, third, or whatever number report it was of Sandusky's bizarre behavior with students at the school.  

"The quick action by high school staff members in Clinton County in response to reports of a possible sexual assault by Sandusky is in marked contrast to the reaction of top officials at Penn State University, who had actually received a first-hand report of a sexual attack by Sandusky seven years earlier."

Incident in wrestling room - no report.  Taking kids out of classes - no report.  Shouting matches with students - no report.  But when a mother visited the school after her son's breakdown, the officials were Johnny on the spot.  No, not really.

We now know that the Principal, Karen Probst, and Vice-Principal, Steven Turchetta were anything but quick to react and had to be told to ban Sandusky from the school by Mike Gillum.  Gillum was the psychologist who worked for Clinton County CYS who got Aaron Fisher to admit the details of Sandusky's crimes against him.

We also know that Probst called Clinton County CYS after Dawn Daniels, the mother of the victim, told her that she was going directly to CYS -- and wasn't going home to think it over (as Probst urged her to do).   Gillum called Probst's phone call a CYA move.

And when ABC's Chris Cuomo showed up at CMHS with a camera and microphone in hand, we saw just how much Probst and Turchetta wanted to talk about their heroic acts.

McQueary's Report

According to Frederickson's press release, Linda Kelly stated,

 "Despite a powerful eyewitness statement about the sexual assault of a child, this incident was not reported to any law enforcement or child protective agency, as required by Pennsylvania law," Kelly said. "Additionally, there is no indication that anyone from the university ever attempted to learn the identity of the child who was sexually assaulted on their campus or made any follow-up effort to obtain more information from the person who witnessed the attack first-hand."

Powerful alright.  So powerful that McQueary could barely get the words out to Paterno and similarly provided few details to Gary Schultz and Tim Curley.  None of the men recalled McQueary describing the event as a sexual assault, let alone an act of anal intercourse (as written in the presentment).  

So powerful that McQueary was unable to tell his father or Dr. Dranov what he had seen.

So powerful that McQueary changed his story about what he saw inside of two weeks of the presentment being published.

Powerful.

The Three Year Investigation

The coup de gras arrives when Frederickson describes the investigative skills of the Pennsylvania State Police and Office of Attorney General.   This is a real gem:

"Kelly said that despite the false testimony and "uncooperative atmosphere" encompassing some Penn State University and Second Mile officials, investigators from the Attorney General's Office and State Police gradually uncovered a pattern of other potential sexual assaults by Sandusky. 

The grand jury eventually identified a total of eight young men who were the targets of similar sexual advances or assaults by Sandusky, starting in 1994 and continuing through 2009.  All of the victims first encountered Sandusky through Second Mile activities."

Wow.

The police eventually pieced together a pattern that the founder of The Second Mile, who had unfettered access to children, was using The Second Mile to find his victims.

I guess we should erect a statue of Inspector Clouseau in the PA Attorney General's office to honor these police and investigators for their exceptional performance.

The 1998 Investigation

Here is Frederickson's error riddled account of  the 1998 investigation:

During testimony before the grand jury, Schultz acknowledged that he was aware of a 1998 University Police investigation that also involved allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior involving Sandusky and young boys in the football showers, but did not pursue the matter further and did not seek any additional review in light of the new report in 2002.

The grand jury also noted that the 1998 report involving Sandusky and boys in the showers was reviewed by University Police and Child Protective Services, with the blessing of Wendell Courtney, who at the time served as University Counsel and was (and remains) counsel to The Second Mile - though no criminal charges were ever pursued. 

Schultz testified that he vaguely remembered the 1998 case as a matter of inappropriate conduct that was alleged by a mother of a young boy.  However, where is Frederickson coming from with Schultz asking for another review of the 1998 case?  And Frederickson definitely got it wrong about Courtney - on two counts.  1) Courtney was never told about the 1998 case until 2011; and 2) Courtney was not representing The Second Mile in 1998.

Conclusion

It's clear that the Attorney General's Office, with Frederickson as its acting director of communications, wrote the script for the false narrative and everyone else in the media promoted it.

By the time the horrific story had made the papers, all of the reporters were sucked in and never followed up on the reason how the charges were "leaked" in the first place.

Nor did they consider alternative scenarios for a cover-up of Sandusky's crimes.

This is the state of mainstream journalism in America.

And explains why more and more people have turned to the internet and the blogosphere to find the best information.

FREEH: Judge, Jury, and Executioner

Penn State Should Delay Settlement Talks Until All Trials Have Concluded

- by Eileen Morgan

The Freeh Report, which was supposed to be based on a full and fair investigation, was published on July 12, 2012.  The Penn State Board of Trustees paid Louis Freeh between $6.5 and $10 million to conduct the investigation (the University has avoided providing a precise amount by lumping Freeh’s bills with some others.)  Yet they have never publicly reviewed, discussed, questioned, challenged or verified any of the Findings or Conclusions of the report.  The Board’s statements on July 12 and their subsequent actions have communicated an acceptance of the report.  The most scathing conclusion was that ‘Penn State officials knowingly enabled Jerry Sandusky to molest boys for 14 years on and around the campus.’  

Since when does one man’s opinion become gospel truth, bypassing the court of law, to determine the accused’s fate?  

This certainly is the course of action taken by the Penn State Board of Trustees, The NCAA, and the general public.  These entities blindly enabled Freeh to be the judge, jury and executioner of Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Graham Spanier and Gary Schultz.  The Board’s overwhelming silence on the matter of the Freeh Report speaks volumes.   Each day they continue to remain quiet only increases the decibels of their approval of the report.  Their uncontested acceptance of the Freeh Report opened the door for the NCAA to waltz in and levy unjustifiable sanctions on Penn State.

The NCAA sanctions will be costing Penn State as much as $100 million.  

The Trustees’ stance regarding the victims’ lawsuits and their criteria for settling on financial compensation has not been made public and it appears we may never be privy to these settlements.  Keep in mind, the NCAA fines and the settlements to Sandusky’s victims that PSU will be paying out is directly related to Penn State’s culpability of Sandusky’s crimes, which was determined by Louis Freeh’s Report, which was paid for by the Board, which has reported that they NEVER read nor reviewed the report before receiving it and announcing that they were implementing its recommendations.  In other words, the PSU Board of Trustees will be paying out tens of millions of dollars for alleged wrongs -- some of which have not been proven in a court of law.  

I am not referring to Sandusky’s crimes, but rather Freeh’s theory that university officials enabled Sandusky’s crimes.  How the Penn State Board of Trustees has gotten away with such a breach of fiduciary responsibility is absolutely mind boggling.  Their leadership and good governance pertaining to the Sandusky Scandal has been non-existent since November 2011. 

The American Justice System Must Be Upheld

Truth, honesty and justice are core values that this society must uphold.   Many of us are seeking the entire truth behind the Sandusky Scandal, whatever that may reveal so that the victims will have justice.  I believe the victims who were sexually abused by Sandusky should be compensated by Sandusky and any entity that was complicit with his crimes.  Is Penn State culpable for Sandusky’s crimes?  The evidence thus far reveals no factual basis that Penn State officials were complicit.  

The Freeh Report has been dismantled¹ by a number of individuals and the Pennsylvania Attorney General has some questions to answer².  However, the Penn State Board of Trustees appears to not care about truth, honesty and justice, but believes it best to just open its checkbook and compensate anyone who claims to be a victim.  Again, I believe the victims should be compensated by all entities proven to be culpable, but I believe it to be a grave injustice for Penn State to compensate victims, until it is proven that PSU officials knowingly covered up Sandusky’s crimes since 1998.  

If the Board freely compensates all claimants without absolute verification that a cover-up took place, then justice will not be served.  This would not only perpetuate greed, dishonesty, and unlawfulness in our society but would encourage others to abuse the justice system that all Americans depend on to be fair and balanced.  It is abhorrent what Sandusky did, but only those parties responsible, perhaps Sandusky alone, should have to make restitution.  

PSU vs. Sandusky’s Victims

Since July 2012, it has been reported that at least 25 men have come forward to sue Penn State for Sandusky’s crimes.  Only ten victims (Victim 2 and Victim 8 were unidentified and not present) were part of the Sandusky Trial.  Of those ten victims, only two (Aaron Fisher-Victim 1 and Victim 9) reported abuse by Sandusky after the 2001 incident which involved Mike McQueary witnessing Victim 2 alone in the football shower with Sandusky.  Victims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 10 all were abused before the 2001 incident.  

Note:  The date of the abuse of Victim 5 is in dispute and based on analysis, we believe the 1998 date to be correct, not the 2001 date testified to at trial.

___________

¹ Eileen Morgan’s Freeh Report Analysis, July 29, 2012.

2 Eileen Morgan’s ‘Three vs. Ten: Unequal Justice Under The Law’, February 11, 2013.

Chronological Chart of Sandusky’s Abuse³

•Victim 7 - Abused 1997 in PSU pool.

•Victim 10 – Abused 1997-1999 in pool and Sandusky’s home

•Victim 4 - Abused 1998-2000 in various locations.

•Victim 6 - Single shower incident 1998.

•Victim 5 - Single shower incident 1998.

•Victim 3 - Abused 2000 at Sandusky home & in shower.

•Victim 8 - Abused PSU shower 2000, Victim has not been identified, only by hearsay witness.

•Victim 2 – Abused PSU shower 2001 - witnessed by McQueary – reported by PSU officials, who reported it to Second Mile.

(Four years of apparent stop of abuse.)

•Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) – Abused 2005-2008 at Sandusky’s home & CMHS.

•Victim 9 – Abused 2006-2009 at Sandusky’s home

The 1998 Investigation

Victim 6 was at the center of the 1998 investigation which was reported by his mother to the police.  The 1998 investigation of Sandusky was thoroughly conducted by University Park police, State College police, DPW, CYS, and the District Attorney.  After a month long investigation the DA determined there was not enough evidence of criminal activity and did not file charges against Sandusky. 

The Penn State officials - Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, and Graham Spanier, claim they never knew of, let alone knew any details of the 1998 investigation.  

The trials for Curley, Spanier, and Gary Schultz have been postponed at the time of this article, therefore, what exactly was known by Curley and Spanier has not been determined by the court of law.  We do know that the police officials and proper state/county agencies investigated Sandusky and found no evidence to bring charges.  This clearly exonerates the Penn State officials from culpability in 1998.  If they knew anything, they knew that Sandusky was unjustly accused of any wrong doing.  This knowledge, if they knew anything, would certainly not give them any reason (and would be unlawful) to treat Sandusky like a child molester.
___________
³ Ray Blehar’s 2011 Grand Jury Presentment, November 10, 2012. 

This begs the question: Why would Penn State compensate any victims that were abused by Sandusky prior to 2001?  Even for victims 2, 1, and 9 in which the abuse began in 2001, 2005, and 2006, respectively, one would think that PSU would wait for the results of the trials for Messrs. Curley, Spanier, and Schultz. 

One Final Thought   

When it comes to Penn State admitting to the school’s alleged cover-up and paying restitution to 25 victims, the majority of which did not go to trial and prove their abuse in a court of law, one would hope that the facts regarding the victims and dates of the abuse, as well as the heavily flawed Freeh Report, would be revisited prior to any settlements.  Perhaps the most fair, reasonable, and lawful action for all parties involved would be for PSU to wait until the trials of Messrs. Curley, Spanier, and Schultz have concluded to decide Penn State’s culpability, if any.  After all, these men have only been alleged to have committed a crime.  It is time to finally uphold due process, the foundation of the American justice system, and put an end to Freeh’s reign of being judge, jury, and executioner.