In his grandstanding press conference on July 12, 2012: Louie"The Liar" Freeh stated that the Schultz file was "found" by his team as a result of "skill and luck." A state witness told a very different story on Monday.
In just the last couple of weeks here is just some of what we have learned:It is rather amazing and illuminating that so much new has happened in the last couple of weeks of the so-called “Penn State Scandal.” After all, since most of the possible punishments have already been decided and enforced (possibly permanently), you would think that we would already know the vast majority of knowledge available regarding what actually did, and did not, happen. Obviously, the fact that this is clearly not the case, proves, if nothing else, that there has been a massive and irrational rush to judgment in this story.
That Joe Paterno gave an interview to the attorney general’s office just two weeks before he was fired in which he directly contradicts the key “cover up” email in the Freeh Report and raises the likelihood that Freeh purposely withheld exculpatory evidence from the report.
That the date of the so-called “janitor” episode, which Freeh used to condemn the “Penn State Football Culture,” which was supposedly late November of 2000, could apparently not have been witnessed by the now-demented janitor at that time because he did not seemingly start working there until late December of that year.
That Mike McQueary now has yet another, at times very contradictory, version of his story and has now augmented it to include seemingly important comments from a now-deceased Joe Paterno (which he never mentioned in previous testimonies after the conversations, but before Paterno passed away).
That the prosecution is so concerned about the real story of Victim 2 that they vigorously prevented their witness Agent Anthony Sassano from even answering whether he knew the identity of that person on two different occasions.
And yet, in the media’s closed mind, this case is already closed and, except for a couple of cherry-picked/out-of-context/alleged statements from Paterno, nothing particularly new or interesting has recently occurred.
As for the preliminary hearing in particular, contrary to highly-predictable media reaction, I actually think that it went about as well as could have been expected for the defense.
A new revelation illustrates why Penn State needs to be fully subject to the state’s Right to Know law. The Freeh report tells a tale about a janitor who allegedly witnessed Jerry Sandusky abusing a boy on campus. The janitor claimed that he feared for his job if he reported what he saw. This unconfirmed anecdote was a driving force behind Freeh’s negative portrayal of Penn State’s culture; a portrayal that factored heavily into the NCAA sanctions.
This latest blow to the credibility of Freeh’s investigation raises a fundamental question – if such a basic fact was missed, what other examples of shoddy work by the Freeh team have yet to be discovered?
It is unclear how Mr. Blehar obtained the payroll records given that such records are currently considered private information. What is clear is that if these records and others were made available to the public, harmful secrets would be much harder to keep and shoddy work would be much easier to detect.
Given that taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in Penn State, they deserve to know what other mistakes are lurking behind the scenes. Please urge your state senator and representative to make Penn State fully subject to the state’s Right to Know law.
According to John Corro, PSU IT personnel provided e-mails to Baldwin in April and November 2011 - contradicting the narrative in the Conspiracy of Silence Presentment. By Ray Blehar
Obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy charges stemming from PSU's alleged lack of cooperation in turning over e-mails and the Schultz file took some serious hits today with the testimony of John Corro and Kimberly Belcher.
The total lack of compliance with the Grand Jury's requests for information, such as Subpoena 1179.
According to the presentment (page 20-23), PSU did not provide any documents or e-mails in response to Subpoena 1179, which was issued in December 2010.
The testimony of John Corro contradicted the Commonwealth's charge on page 23 that IT employees were never asked to fulfill requests for Sandusky related information. According to OnwardState, Corro stated that they were asked and complied with requests for e-mail searches on Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno. Corro stated that they had turned over e-mails to Baldwin in April 2011 and November 2011.
Spanier's letter to the Board of Trustees from July 2012 confirmed that the e-mail evidence was indeed collected by PSU and turned over at his grand jury appearance in April 2011.
The Schultz file
Given my previous blogging on the Schultz file, I was keenly interested to find out how Kimberly Belcher would testify about its provision to Gary Schultz, the OAG, and the Freeh Group.
A Patriot Newsarticle by Jeff Franz reported that Belcher, by her own volition, gathered up the files and delivered the originals to Schultz. She then was going to tell the Freeh group about the file in January, but balked when a University lawyer was present. She eventually turned the file over after being subpoenaed in April.
The OnwardState article by Jess Tully reported a similar version, except that the OS version implied that Belcher told the Freeh group about the file in January 2012 and that she was subpoenaed in April 2012, but the article was not definitive on the hand over of the file.
UPDATE 8/2/2013: Transcripts reveal that Belcher stated Schultz turned the file over to the Office of Attorney General one day prior to her turning it over. Both reporters missed this not so small fact?
Regardless of when the delivery of the files happened, the key takeaway of each account is that in neither case did Schultz request the file from Belcher, who delivered it to Schultz as part of things she thought he should have. Also, Belcher testified that Schultz told her to cooperate with the investigation if asked.
Also, it is notable that Schultz testified about the existence of the file in January 2011 at his grand jury appearance, but was not working at PSU at the time and thought it might have been destroyed. Schultz did not hide the file in any way, shape, or form.
Between the testimony of Belcher and Schultz, there is no basis for the charge (page 38) that:
Schultz hid the existence of pertinent files and notes.
My previous blogs on the Schultz file and the antics of Cynthia Baldwin also provide the evidence that the charge of Curley and Spanier hiding the existence of files is also baseless.
Today was the prosecutor's ball game and the testimony of Belcher and Corro didn't help the prosecution's cause.
While McQueary made the biggest news of the day with his revelation about Paterno talking to him about the 2001 incident every so often through the years, reports vary on what was actually said and it's best to wait to see the transcripts.
Ray Blehar earned a mid-life master's degree from Penn State. That gave him a reason to pay closer attention to the fallout of the Jerry Sandusky saga.
He also has 28 years of experience as a government analyst. He's written business reviews, evaluated reports and became used to "telling (people) stuff they don't want to hear" as an inspector general.
All of that helped drive him on a quest the past two years.
Blehar has devoted much of his free time to researching and analyzing documents and reports related to Sandusky and Penn State, including the grand jury presentment, the trial transcript, media reports and government press releases.
It's been a learning process on child-abuse laws, the state's child-protective agencies and how the system is supposed to work
The defenders of the current narrative, who don't know much about the Sandusky case, try to dismiss the new evidence as Petrosky getting the date wrong. He got a lot more wrong than that.
By Ray Blehar
Recent evidence uncovered in my investigation reveals that janitor James Calhoun may not have been employed at PSU at the time of the incident. While defenders of the current narrative try to excuse this evidence as simply confusion by the other janitors about the date of the incident, there were many inconsistencies with Ronald Petrosky's testimony.
The Commonwealth stated the incident happened between Nov 20-27, 2000, on a weekend of an away football game.
1) The season ended on Nov 18, 2000.
2) The last away game was Nov 11, 2000.
3) The witness Petrosky testified the team was playing Ohio State (September 23, 2000).
4) The crime scene changed between the grand jury report and the trial.
5) Petrosky said he called the police in March 2011, after reading an article in the CDT about the "grad assistant" witnessing a shower incident. That information wasn't published until November 2011.
6) At the grand jury, Petrosky said he was INSIDE the locker room cleaning when he was approached by the eyewitness, Calhoun.
7) At the trial, Petrosky said he was OUTSIDE the locker room and entered to find Calhoun trembling and shaking
8) At the grand jury, Petrosky said the upper bodies of Sandusky and the child were blocked (not visible).
9) At the trial, Petrosky said he didn't see the upper bodies because he was looking down. Prosecutors stated there were no obstructions in the locker room.
10) Petrosky claimed the Calhoun witnessed the crime after both he and Calhoun had been in the shower room not less than 10 feet away from Sandusky. This does not fit with Sandusky's pattern of disengaging with victims when others were present. Both Victim 4 and Victim 1 confirmed that was Sandusky's pattern.
11) The second hearsay witness, Jay Witherite, who testified at the grand jury, did not testify at the trial. No explanation was provided for his absence, which was required to allow the hearsay testimony of Petrosky (see Commonwealth v. Barnes).
Conclusion: The janitor incident doesn't hold water, yet Louis Freeh said this:
“The janitors, that’s the tone on the bottom. Ok. These are the employees of Penn State who clean the locker rooms in the Lasch building where young boys are being raped. They witness, what is probably, in the report, the most horrific rape, that’s described.”
It's time to slam the door on this incident and Louis Freeh.
The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General constructed a nearly perfect crime for generating outrage and being nearly bullet-proof -- but an obstruction got in the way of that perfection.
By Ray Blehar
Rarely, do I offer strictly an analysis article, but the Victim 8/Janitor incident was so striking in its brilliance that I felt I could not pass up this opportunity to write about the psychology behind the incident.
Sandusky’s alleged sexual abuse incident in
November 2000 , witnessed by janitor James Calhoun, was nearly the perfect
crime for generating outrage and for its ability to be nearly impossible to
First, crimes against children, the elderly,
and the sick/infirmed are viewed as particularly heinous by American society – and
this incident had all three. The alleged incident involved an elderly janitor
who witnessed Sandusky performing oral sex on a child and then became so
distraught over the incident that he was shaking and trembling. Despite the fact that he was an adult who
watched another adult molest a child and did nothing to stop the abuse, the
visual image of an old man trembling and shaking caused the public to perceive
him as a “victim” of Sandusky’s crime.
Thus, it was perceived as a crime with two victims – the young boy and the elderly
Next, and just in case that wasn’t enough,
the Commonwealth used the fact that James Calhoun now suffers from Alzheimer’s
to not only make him a more sympathetic character in this story, but for the
reason that it made it nearly impossible (and politically incorrect) for
someone to question his story.
Obviously, Mr. Calhoun’s memory is unreliable
because he suffers from dementia.
Moreover, if he never mentioned the crime to his family before the onset
of Alzheimer’s, they would have no way to learn about the crime. So, talking to his family to verify the crime
would not be a reliable method to prove
or disprove the crime.
In essence, there was almost no way to
disprove this crime and also little incentive to do so, considering that anyone
who questioned Calhoun’s story would likely be castigated for political
Whoever wrote the script for this crime was
truly brilliant in his or her understanding of psychology, but, unfortunately, was
not focused on the details and erred when putting an obstruction in the locker room. Because if Petrosky could not see through the obstruction, neither could Calhoun.
Despite this problem with physical evidence, many were fooled, including Louis Freeh, the media, and especially Patricia Johnson, who fell hard for the story. She called Calhoun a victim, just as the OAG intended. She also called him a hero, but for the wrong reason.
"My Heart and Prayers Go Out to Jim Calhoun, a Major Victim in the Sandusky Crime Spree
There has always been a special place in my heart for Veterans, partly due to being brought up to believe how extraordinary the men and woman who fight for our country are, and partly due to interactions through the years with Veterans.....
In the fall of 2000, our victim, Jim Calhoun, was working as a janitor at Penn State University. Jim, while performing his job duties, witnessed Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky, the defensive coordinator of Penn State’s Division I collegiate football program, performing oral sex on a young boy in the showers of the Lasch Building. Note: Any person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Jim immediately went to other members of the janitorial staff and explained what he had witnessed.
Employee Ronald Petrosky was also working that evening and it was his job to clean the showers which were empty due to the fact the football players were at an away game. Petrosky could not see who was in the assistant coaches’ shower room, but he heard the sound of running water and could see two pairs of feet. Coach Sandusky and a young boy, between the ages of 11-13, eventually exited the shower with their hair wet. Petrosky then observed the coach holding hands with the boy as they were walking down the long hall leading out of Lasch Building.
As he was cleaning the shower that Sandusky and the boy had used, Jim Calhoun came up to Petrosky and was noticeably upset and crying. Jim, visibly shaking, told Petrosky he “fought in the [Korean] war….seen people with their guts blowed out, arms dismembered…I just witnessed something in there I’ll never forget.” Jim went on to explain to Petrosky that he saw Sandusky (at the time, he did not know the coach’s name) holding the boy up against the wall and licking on him.
Witherite observed that Jim was “very emotionally upset” and “distraught” to the point Witherite “was afraid the man was going to have a heart attack or something the way he was acting.” while he was explaining how he had observed Jerry Sandusky performing oral sex on the young boy [that same evening Sandusky was parked in his vehicle in the parking lot and Calhoun was able to point him out to Witherite].
Witherite attempted to calm Jim and went on to explain to him who he should contact to report the incident – if he chose to report it.
No report was ever made by Jim Calhoun – We’ll rephrase that statement and say there is no report on file made by Jim Calhoun. We can’t confirm or deny whether he made a report by talking to Jim Calhoun because this poor man is considered ‘incompetent to testify’. He is currently suffering from dementia and living in a nursing home.
The identity of the young boy has never been determined.
How much of Jim Calhoun’s dementia can be attributed to the atrocity he witnessed back in the year 2000?How long can a fragile mind cope with the knowledge that a wrong has been committed by a person in power and know that nothing will be done to protect others from the same thing happening to them? From the few comments he made about his tour in Korea, it’s obvious that Jim Calhoun suffered some degree of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He went to a foreign country to fight for freedom and 45 years later sees a child on U.S. soil being sexually abused by a powerful man. How many years of torment did Jim Calhoun go through before his mind finally snapped?
The attitude of Penn State towards the despicable acts performed on their campus is readily seen in their willingness to pay the legal fees of Athletic Director Timothy Mark Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Charles Schultz, who were both charged with perjury and failure to report. Schultz’s position includes oversight of Penn State University Police Department.
When this Veteran’s Day rolls around say a special prayer for Jim Calhoun, the one man that tried to come forward and fight for what’s right. "
James Calhoun is indeed a hero. He was a Private First Class in the U.S. Army, Light Duty Infantry, who was seriously wounded in a rocket attack during the Korean War in November 1951. He eventually returned to duty. Today, he lives in a nursing home near Lock Haven.
The records show he was not a PSU employee at the time the Commonwealth alleged the crime occurred. Therefore, the most despicable act in the Victim 8 incident is the Commonwealth's use of James Calhoun, because he suffered from dementia, as a "patsy" for witnessing a crime that didn't happen.
"Penn State spokesperson David La Torre declined comment saying, 'We are not aware of it'."
Mr. La Torre made the above statement on February 19, 2013 regarding Franco Harris’s plea to President Erickson to rebuild the wall that was torn down by his order on July 24, 2012. Erickson’s action essentially erased decades of on-field achievements of more than one thousand student athletes. What Mr. La Torre failed to mention in his statement is that Franco Harris contacted Erickson’s office not just once, but three times to discuss the matter and President Erickson never responded in courtesy to any of the calls. La Torre’s statement is just another “non-truth” that can be added to a very long list of the communication subterfuge.
Below is a copy of a certified letter from Brian Masella 75’ that he subsequently mailed to President Erickson and entire BOT via Paula Ammerman regarding the subject after LaTorre’s comment To date, no acknowledgement has ever been received. If asked, La Torre would probably refute and deny any knowledge of the letter that both Erickson and the Board have failed to respond.
March 6, 2013
President Rodney Erickson and Board of Trustees The Pennsylvania State University 205 Old Main University Park, PA 16802
Please accept this letter as a formal request to rebuild the Wall that honored decades of Nittany Lion football lettermen and their achievements. That wall represented the loyalty, motivation, hard work, and dedication of hundreds of football players who gave their hearts and souls for the privilege to play on the field at Beaver Stadium and proudly represent their Alma Mater.
As a former Nittany Lion and a Letterman, there were plaques on that wall that honored the teams on which I, personally, played. As you are aware, there were six decades of lettermen recognized on those plaques. The Wall represented a place of pride and fond remembrances of years gone by to tens of thousands of alumni, students, faculty, families, athletic fans and so many others. Even with its removal, the site is visited yet today by onlookers remembering its exact location in the berm along side the East side of the stadium...
You chose to remove and tear down that outward expression of “a job well done” because of an ill-conceived notion that it was going to prevent the University from “moving forward” from a travesty. To this day, I believe you do not understand the significance of your action. Certainly, I do not believe your decision was one that serves the interests of our Penn State community.
The lettermen did nothing to deserve the disgrace of having the Wall removed. Those players and teams who were honored as part of that monument also did nothing to have their memory destroyed. We are still here as a productive part of society, making an impact, just as we were taught by our beloved coach. On behalf of my fellow teammates and Lettermen, I ask you to rebuild the Wall and remind Penn Staters everywhere of what we did Saturday after Saturday to help make Penn State proud!
The courtesy of a reply or acknowledgement is requested.
Sincerely, Brian Masella, Football Letterman, Class of 1975.
Recently, more than 300 football Lettermen proclaimed their support for the lawsuit against the NCAA sanctions levied on Penn State’s Football program on July 23, 2012. We, the undersigned, are former Penn State student-athletes and coaches from sports other than football, who join to support the legal action against the NCAA. When we represented Penn State on the field, the court, the ice, the mat, the ring, the pool, or the track we championed a common culture pursuing Success With Honor in the classroom and in athletic competition.
The hasty and unjust actions of The NCAA surely penalize current and future football student-athletes and staff. However, they also negatively impact all former, current and future Penn State student-athletes and coaches in every sport. That is why we support illuminating the truth and the fight for Penn State—reclaiming the exemplary culture hard won by sacrifices we all made to compete with honor.
As others have noted, Penn State is the only public institution participating in major college football that has never been sanctioned for major NCAA violations in any sport. To this day we support the fight for that truth because this fact remains; Penn State has not committed any major NCAA violations in any sport. That is a statement that we all paid for with our own sacrifices and commitment, and is worth fighting for.
Finally, as proud former Penn State student-athletes and coaches not associated with the football program, we firmly reject the idea that there was a culture of reverence for the football program that compromised the values of this proud institution’s academic mission.
We are here to bear witness because we lived it. All athletes thrived, partnering with the football program to create a culture of athletic and academic excellence that even the NCAA itself lauded as the benchmark for other universities to emulate. As the football Lettermen’s statement noted, all we want is due process and the truth to be heard, no matter what form that takes.
Glenn F. Thiel- Wrestling/Lacrosse 1966
James Taylor – Soccer/Baseball 1972
Brian Masella – Swimming/Baseball 1973
Christine Kassab Powell - Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1974
Barbara Doran – Field Hockey/Lacrosse/Basketball 1975
Susan McCoy Fissinger – Field Hockey/ Lacrosse 1976
Hilary Graves Young - Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1977
Sharon Duffey- Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1978
Karen Schnellenbach – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1979
Sharon Scott Stewart – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1979
Jody Field - Field Hockey/LaCrosse 1979
Debra L. Malone - Field Hockey/Softball 1980
Sharon Tinucci – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1981
Jan E. Snyder – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1982
Judy Mahaffey Busby – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1983
Lauren Hoke Downs – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1983
Laurie Gray Markle – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1984
Karen Richards MacCrory - Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1984
Lynnie Mattson - Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1984
Tami Worley Kirby – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1989
MaryAnne Foley Schiller – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1991
Megan Smith Fizzano – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1991
Elena Brazer Arthur – Field Hockey/Lacrosse 1991
Christine McGinley – Field Hockey/Lacrosse/Soccer 1995