August 7, 2013
Even if you haven’t been paying attention to the court hearings, the Freeh Report, or public scapegoating, you know that over the 22 months of the Sandusky scandal, lines have been drawn in anger.
There are many sides to the story and there is extensive finger-pointing, mostly based on how key statements can be interpreted in different ways. The same testimony can be twisted to support or refute any viewpoint.
While many people cast their judgments based on quick soundbites and predetermined conclusions, there are a few voices who see through the misinterpretations, and, in some cases, the deliberate misleading of the Freeh Report, the NCAA, and child social services.
One of these voices is Ray Blehar.
More than anyone else, Ray has provided clarity on issues that have puzzled hundreds of other people. While the average reader of the Freeh Report might think something seems odd about the janitors’ eyewitness account of abuse in November 2000, Ray took a closer look at the details and discovered, based on Penn State’s payroll records, that the janitor was not a University employee during the time in question, thus could not have witnessed the crime.
See ... Ray’s not just your average arm-chair detective reading through the mountains of reports, he’s a United States government analyst, a senior requirements analyst, to be exact.
For his day job, he evaluates the affordability and performance of major systems acquisitions and, in a previous role with the Board of Examiners for the U.S. Senate, he examined aspects of organizational governance, including legal and ethical responsibilities, operational performance, and financial accountability. So basically, he knows his stuff.
Ray also received an MBA from the Smeal College of Business at Penn State, but don’t assume that this indicates loyalty to the university. He said in a recent interview with Frank Bodani of the York Daily Record, "If I have to burn Penn State to the ground, I will." I asked Ray this week what he will do if he uncovers indisputable evidence that there was an elaborate conspiracy at Penn State?
“Any evidence that I uncover that can be used in a criminal prosecution is turned over to law enforcement,” Ray says. “Past, present, and future. If that evidence incriminates people at Penn State, so be it.”
Congrats on the coverage.
ReplyDeleteThe heated exchange going on at StateCollege.com over Ray et al.'s efforts to figure out what really enabled Sandusky to victimize boys will at least serve to sharpen the arguments.
ReplyDeleteI found it amusing that the opposition, who believe that PSU was at fault, immediately defaulted to strawman arguments and namecalling when confronted with the facts.
DeleteI liken these people to someone standing on the deck of the Titanic as it is sinking, forcefully yelling at the evacuating passengers to not believe the captain and to stay on the ship.
These people see the false narrative crumbling, piece by piece and are desperately hanging onto the few shreds of information that hasn't been completely debunked.
How will you address the very real concerns that Sandusky's convictions may not hold up?
ReplyDeleteSandusky would get out of jail for perhaps 24 hours before he would be charged with new crimes and put back in jail. That is, of course, assuming that the Commonwealth had many other victims who they chose not to bring forward in the first prosecution.
DeleteInterestingly, if the victims who took settlements from PSU and and also signed confidentiality agreements were the Victims the state did not bring to trial, I am wondering if there would be legal recourse to nullify the confidentiality agreements???
I.e., State vs PSU in order to proceed with new charges against JS?! What a dilemma for PSU... new leader in protecting children.
ReplyDelete.
The arguments are finally being sharpened, minus the barbs and CAPS, in the Comments on Holly's story about Ray's work on the JS/ Penn State case.
ReplyDelete