My brother sent me a text message yesterday, while I was traveling back from Mississippi, that I had made the front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I returned the text with a question "About Franco?"
I then pulled up the story to read the highly inaccurate account of the information I relayed to Mark Dent around Memorial Day of this year. It read as follows:
In State College, Mr. Blehar attempted to discredit the testimony of some of Sandusky's victims, saying they exaggerated how small and young they were when they were sexually violated by Sandusky. In a later email exchange, Mr. Blehar wrote, "[prosecutor Joe] McGettigan coached many of the witnesses into changing their stories." He said his purpose of dissecting their testimony was to draw attention to Pennsylvania's child protective services.
E-mails were quite clearThe following is the e-mail exchange with Mark Dent. It is clear that Dent, who stated he understood the concept of anchoring, intentionally ignored the entire theme of my State College presentation.
of it I'm discussing the Upon Further Review panels that he hosts. I went to the one he had in State College
last month, and you spoke there. I wanted to ask you something about part of your presentation: At one
point, you were talking about Victim 4 and discussing his testimony and how the height that he said he
was was likely inaccurate. You also pointed out that McGettigan called the victims little kids and then you
showed that the victims were between ages 13-16 for the most part when the abuse took place. Why did
you choose to dissect these matters? Is there a particular point you are trying to make by pointing this out?
I didn't quite understand when you were discussing it there.
Dent later goes on to state:
But as Penn State continues to move on from the Sandusky scandal and Mr. Harris and his "team" veer further toward personal vendettas and the questioning of Sandusky victims, how long can the grace period endure?