Monday, October 14

Central Mountain High School Probe Not Just About Aaron Fisher

USAToday's report of the AG's probe at CMHS should do more than re-plow old ground

Ray Blehar

An e-mail alerted me to the USAToday story that went to press on October 7th regarding the Pennsylvania Attorney General's probe into the actions of Central Mountain High School in the Sandusky case.

As I read the story, it was surprising to find out that CMHS Principal Karen Probst's call to Clinton County Children and Youth Services was to not just alert officials about an incoming complaint about Sandusky, but an attempt to diminish the credibility of Aaron Fisher and his mother, Dawn Hennessy.

This is the first new information in the case since we heard Frank Fina state there was no evidence to support Joe Paterno's role in a cover-up.  However, the probe at CMHS could reveal more new information than the USAToday article reported.

While the article went on to not only detail the foot-dragging by CMHS regarding Fisher's complaint, it also highlighted some of the other well-known unusual activities of Sandusky that the school ignored, including:

-- Sandusky devoted unusual attention to boys at school who were involved with The Second Mile;
-- Sandusky removed children from class to counsel them;
-- Vice-Principal Turchetta retrieved children from school activities to see Sandusky;
-- Truchetta testified Sandusky acted "clingy and needy" when students broke off relationships with Sandusky and that Sandusky's behavior was suspicious.

The stories of the other children at CMHS may likely provide one of the keys to understanding why the investigation took so long.

Most people familiar with the case are aware of one other boy, F.A., who was referenced in the grand jury presentment as being subject to the unwanted non-sexual touching and tickling by Sandusky.  F.A. reportedly stayed at Sandusky's home one time and at the same time as Fisher.

But who were the other boys that Sandusky took out of class and what happened to them?

The Police Investigation

According to public records, the police investigation into Fisher's complaint was first undertaken by Troopers Cavanaugh and Akers in December 2008.  Neither man testified at the trial nor did their names appear as potential witnesses for the prosecution.   Allegedly, they did not identify any victims from CMHS who knew Aaron Fisher.

In February 2009, Cavanaugh and Akers were replaced by Trooper Lear.  Lear did not testify at the trial nor did his name appear on the list of potential witnesses for the prosecution.  Allegedly, Lear did not identify any victims from CMHS who knew Fisher.

In June 2009, Trooper Scott Rossman replaced Lear.  Rossman testified at the trial and was caught making false statements under oath.  Allegedly, like the other officers who interviewed Aaron Fisher, he did not identify any other victims from CMHS who knew Fisher.

One of the reasons that the police failed to identify possible victims is that they relied on Fisher to point out the other children.  According to Fisher's book, Silent No More, the police did not obtain any records from The Second Mile regarding participants in their program until January 2011 - 25 months into the investigation.

But there is more to the story.

According to Mike Gillum, the state trooper who typically investigated sexual abuse incidents was officer Patterson.  Gillum was surprised when Akers and Cavanaugh showed up to interview Fisher and he suspected something was not quite right about their assignment to the case.  While they may be fine law enforcement officers, it is highly likely that they were not trained to recognize the signs of possible sexual abuse and did not recognize that some of Fisher's friends may have been victims.

Inconsistency of Testimony and Peer Pressure

In 1998, there was as group of about six to eight boys who were frequently seen with Sandusky and five of them testified to varying levels of abuse at the trial.  The inconsistency of testimony is easily explained by the research on compliant victim behavior, which states that compliant victims will deny, downplay, or exaggerate the abuse they suffered, often in an attempt to satisfy the investigator's or evaluator's expectations.   More often that not, however, when a group of children have been abused, the offender uses bonding, competition, and peer pressure from within the group to keep the children from disclosing abuse.  To wit:

The offender may use peer pressure to control his victims, and the children will enforce the rules on each other. No victim wants to be the one to ruin it for anyone  else or embarrass others, and each victim may think he or she is the offender’s “favorite.” All these techniques simply capitalize on the developmental needs of children of different ages. 

I suspect, just as in 1998, there appears to have been a similar group of children/minors at CMHS who were in contact with Sandusky in the 2003 to 2008 time frame.  Sandusky became a volunteer assistant football coach at CMHS in 2003, which was a least a year prior to him meeting Aaron Fisher through The Second Mile camp in 2004.  Fisher also testified that he was with Sandusky and a group of boys at the Blanchard Dam and other places.

Missing the Signs of Child Sexual Abuse

This passage from page 73 of the NCMEC & DOJ Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis provides some valuable insights on child molestation that I suspect were not known to the police investigators:

It is easy to be judgmental toward victims when you look at only the end product of their seduction. 
At the beginning of the relationship the child is looking for friendship, emotional support, a job, or just some fun. The lowering of sexual inhibitions is usually done so gradually and skillfully the victim does not realize he or she is a victim until it is too late. It may begin with simple affection such as a pat, hug, or kiss on the cheek.  In addition to being part of the seduction process, such activity can also be sexual acts themselves. Sexual activity can begin with conversation about sex. This might include “dirty” jokes and encouraging children to share their sexual attitudes and feelings. The activity can progress to fondling while wrestling, playing hide-and seek in the dark, playing strip poker, swimming nude in the pool, drying the child with a towel, massaging an injury, giving a back rub, tickling, playing a physical game, or cuddling in bed. Some offenders may have no interest in progressing beyond such acts. They are not a means to an end, but an end in themselves as their preferred sexual activity.

This passage contained many of the behaviors that the victims of Sandusky testified about at the trial and grand jury.  It cannot be understated that those behaviors were mentioned to trained DPW and CYS caseworkers in the 1998 case and were somehow not considered signs of sexual abuse.  It appears those signs may also have missed with F.A. and possibly others in 2008 and 2009 during the initial stages of the investigation.

There is no question that the Kane/Moulton investigation needs to review the records of the police interviews of the CMHS children (if the records still exist) to determine if signs were missed or if there were simply no disclosures from the children involved.

Finally, the investigation needs to determine if any later abuse could have been prevented.

Fisher, Others Not Protected

The November 2011 grand jury presentment reported that Sandusky had called Fisher 61 times from January 2008 to July 2009.   If there were any calls between January 2009 and July 2009, those calls would provide evidence that the Clinton County CYS was not diligent in ensuring that The Second Mile put a plan in place to prohibit Sandusky from having contact with Fisher and other children.

According to the Public Welfare Code, Pa. 055§ 3490.56 (b) and (e), Clinton County CYS should have required the The Second Mile to put a protection plan in place during the investigation and after Sandusky had been indicated.  This plan should have prevented Sandusky's access to all children, not just Aaron Fisher from November 20, 2008 forward.

Given that Sandusky did not retire officially from The Second Mile until September 2010 - nearly two years after he was indicated for abusing Aaron Fisher, this was a clear violation of the Public Welfare Code and also requires follow-up investigation by the Attorney General.

If there were others abused after November 2008, and it appears that was the case with Victim 9, whose dates of abuse on the original Bill of Particulars were 2005 to 2009 and the amended Bill of Particulars confirm that abuse continued into December 2008, then Clinton County CYS and The Second Mile could be charged with endangering the welfare of children.



  1. You probably consider this dwelling on the subject but Sandusky was fired in the spring of that year, he didn't retire. It's important because it led to other things.

    1. Thanks, Misder2. Unfortunately, I can't find anything on the public record to confirm the firing. If you have something, please e-mail me using the contact at Nevertheless, a Spring 2010 firing is still much too late because all ties with JS and the charity/kids should have been cut in Nov 2008.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I think the fact that so many trained professionals missed the signs demonstrates how well JS was at grooming the community. The fact that the trained professionals didn't identify his behavior as concerning should quiet those that say, "I would have known." when they criticize the 4 PSU employees. And PA legislators can change the reporting laws to prevent reporting up the chain of command, but if PA's trained professionals can't do a better job of identifying the signs, then this change in the law will not make PA kids any safer.

    1. Andrea,
      I've written quite a bit on PA's child protection system being at the root cause of enabling Sandusky's crimes. You are correct that the legislative actions to improve reporting abuse incidents (as well as PSU's) won't make PA's children safer.

      The worst failures are AFTER THE CALLS are made.

  4. Ray, in June 1998, one week after Jerry Sandusky was cleared in the May 1998 investigation, Sandusky arrived at a private home of a young boy in Clearfield County to pick this boy up, under the auspices of The Second Mile. A Home Visitor from the Head Start program was scheduled to work with, and she was already in the home providing therapeutic services for the boy - when Sandusky took him. As a student who was doing fieldwork in Occupational Therapy training that morning, I was unable to complete the required clinical fieldwork log - documenting the therapy I was required to job shawdow at this session.
    Head Start prevented my producing this fieldwork log by claiming I had committed a "confidentiality violation", by taking 3 photos of children that they lined up for outdoor photos. Head Start insisted I be removed from my educational program when I was entering my third year of college at Penn State, and threatened to take legal action if I were to have any further contact with the Home Visitor or the family of the boy Sandusky took with him that day.
    If the Office of the Attorney General is now going to investigate CMHS for allowing crimes to continue, why is the OAG NOT interested in pursuing Cen-Clear Head Start, who committed all of the above AND various crimes - which are especially well documented in this one scenario? These crimes include the obstruction of justice, illegal demands to other agencies to enforce corrupt practices, fraud, threatening a witness, falsification of records with the intent of malice, harassment, lying under oath, theft by deception, and severe abuses of authority. When severe damages have occurred to innocent persons in the state of Pennsylvania during this intentional coverup - WHY ISN'T KATHLEEN KANE DOING ALL SHE CAN TO GO AFTER THESE CORRUPT AGENCIES?

    1. I have to wonder the same thing, "why isn't Kathleen Kane making a more aggressive investigation of all these corrupt agencies? She's doing it in the shadows with "no time frame". I want to be optimistic and believe her when she says, "these are our children we're talking about". But if her current investigation really is an all out effort to end the exploitation of children within PA's government and quasi-government programs, why is she not just going public with it? My answer to that is, she is buying time for the corrupt people involved, and buying time so records may be destroyed while we wait years for her "justice". Sadly, I'm afraid she too is only interested in letting this blow over. She'll then enact some after-the-fact legislation when all the dirty players like Corbett are "retired" and forgotten. Where is morality in all of this? We need to severely punish everyone who has exploited these children for sexual and FINANCIAL gain. Is Kane just too weak to stand up to the "mighty" Louis Freeh, the one that sells his cover-up reports to the PA government criminals that have exploited these children?

    2. I'm GLAD she's taking her time in this investigation...The longer it takes, the charges will stick and no room for error...She's no fool and knows it would end her career if she screwed the ppl of PA by going against her campaign promises...

    3. I'm also glad that Kane's at least doing something. Her campaign promise was she would investigate Corbett's handling, or rather, mishandling of the Sandusky issue. I believe there has been more than enough time to show illegal activity on Corbett's part. She didn't promise to convict Corbett. It's politics now, it's "oh he's Governor, we can't disrupt the image people have of the Governor". Certainly Kane must know, everyday that goes by with these desperate lying government criminals, Louis Freeh included, is another day to "lose" vital records for conviction. All we're going to hear next year is, "oh Corbett PROBABLY played politics with the Sandusky issue". We've already heard that from her and it's vague as hell. I'm concerned that she's just not got the backbone to bring down Corbett and most of the corrupt government under him. And she is probably scared to death to contradict the Freeh fraud. And that's exactly what telling the truth would do, contradict the Freeh fraud. So Kane's doing a win/win situation for her and for Corbett. She keeps her promise and "investigates", and her findings will intentionally be vague. Corbett gets off the hook, and Kane looks good by enacting a legislation that makes it harder for unethical politicians to exploit Pennsylvania's children. Corbett and Freeh have ruined innocent, good peoples lives with their illegal falsehoods. And they have severely crushed Pennsylvania moral with their slanderous lies. It's time they stand trial just like the ordinary people of Pennsylvania would have to. If I'm wrong, and Kane has a spine and a true sense of morality, then she will be the biggest hero Pennsylvania has seen in a very long time.

    4. I'm sure Kane could come out with some charges now, but, like the Feds, she has found out there is much more to this than some footdragging over an election.

    5. Could Corbett lay out a similar defense of his lengthy investigation of Sandusky? As his people dug into things surrounding JS, they began getting hints of something deeper... a shielding of JS by PSU to protect... Hey! maybe its football progam???!!!

      So a big question becomes: Can Kane/ Moulton build a strong enough case to counter such a defense?

    6. I am of the mindset that Corbett needs to be jailed NOW on what ever "small" charges that are obvious at this point. And I doubt the charges are actually small. As long as he is in power to order the destruction of records that implicate him, Kane's potential case against him weakens everyday. He has solicited false evidence and false testimony used in a court of law. And he is engaging in obstruction of justice on every level. It's clear he is a severe risk for causing further damage to the system and the people of Pennsylvania. If I were Kane, I'd get him locked up so he is not able to further impede her investigation as she uncovers the deeper, more serious crimes.

  5. JusticeNow,
    Suggest you send this information to the AG. There website has contact information.

  6. Dear Justice Now,

    Please request an interview with the Kane/ Moulton team. Let them determine whether your information can further their investigations. Whatever documentation you still have could be very valuable. Your story may also provide corroboration for someone else's experience.

    We cannot always be certain of the value of our stories, testimonies. But if we don't share them with those who seem to be connected to them, we could miss a chance to really make a difference. Good luck! And may you find justice soon!


  7. Justice Now -

    Just as Ray and RDK suggests - please take your story to Kane / Moulton. That may be very powerful information you have. She has a lot of puzzle pieces to put together - and I'm guessing many of them are uncooperative, moving targets. Hard to believe you were treated that way - and perhaps now it's a little clearer why.

  8. I am reminded of the Father Shanley prosecution where a recovered memory expert was allowed to testify to give credibility to the witness against Shanley. The appellate court was told that recovered memories was junk science and that the expert's testimony against Shanley was invalid That would invalidate the conviction. The appellate court said that the trial judge based his decision to allow the expert's testimony on a mountain of reports, and the trial judge's decision was based on deliberation appropriate for the case. The appellate court found that the judge did not err, although the science of recovered memory is nonsense. What horrible sophistry.

    One has to be wary of theories that explain away exculpatory evidence, as Mr. Clemente's grooming theory does. Of the 58 supplicants for money from Mr. Rozen, only one, Aaron Fisher, told on Sandusky before being hounded by ardent investigators. The other 57 said nothing even after aging out of Second Mile. There was even two years of getting nothing to support Fisher before the crusading investigators and high powered lawyers asserted themselves. The 57 did nothing to stop Sandusky, yet Dr. Spainer is at risk of prison for not stopping Sandusky. He did not experience Sandusky's abuse or see it - He didn't put the 1998 and 2001 incidents on Cleary forms.

    By the way, "vigorous exercise" is important to many. Sandusky and others were allowed to work out in Penn State facilities. I used to play volleyball on Friday evenings. The extremely modest exercise did wonders for my depression at that divorce period in my life. Some umbrage was was expressed when I used the term "vigorous exercise" in a prior post.

    I don't understand why Ray Blehar insists that Sandusky committed crimes when there is no credible evidence to support it. Simple showering with the boys is not enough because most states set aside area for nudist camps where families live and the ancient Olympic games were all done in the nude.

    Some element of lewdness is needed for nakedness to be a crime. Consider changing diapers or bathing toddlers. Obviously those are not crimes in themselves. Even insertion of objects in the anus is not a crime per se. There are Rectal thermometers and some families, such as mine when I was a kid, use enemas. I believe it was the little Rascals case where prosecutors wanted to prove that a boy received anal sexual penetration to which the boy testified. So they stuck an instrument up the boy's butt to measure any stretching of the sphincter. Community madness is crazy!

    1. WBill,
      The passage from page 73 from the NCMEC & DOJ manual was written by an FBI expert profiler. It lists some of Sandusky's behaviors which are considered crimes BECAUSE they are considered to be sexual activities. Under Pennsylvania law, they are considered crimes such as corruption of minors (Tier 1 Sex Offense), endangering the welfare of children, and unlawful contact with a minor (Tier 2 Sex Offense).

      Sandusky was doing more than showering with boys. There is ample evidence to support that and his activities match those from the behavior analysis of child molesters. Suggest you read pages 70-77 of the Guide -- it should leave no doubt about what Sandusky was (a preferential/acquaintance offender).

    2. Ray, that is gibberish! Grooming and patterns are Salem Witch Trial versions of evidence. You are so wrong. But I admire your work a great deal.Y

    3. To westchesterbil: You are wrong. Gooming and patterns are tools used by child molesters to gain the trust of their intended child victims. It's a proven fact. We have societal norms that allow us to know who is a potential danger to children. That's why it's illegal in most states for adults to touch children in certain ways or be naked with them in certain circumstances. It's not sex, but the point is, it's grooming. That's why we have societal norms and laws that protect our children. You seem more interested in preserving creepy adult behavior as an accepted social practice. I don't like witch hunt mentality either, and that's what Corbett harnessed in his false accusations against PSU. But, we have to have ways to identify potential threats to our children.

    4. Ray - What is the name of the NCMEC & DOJ manual you refer to?

    5. I think WCB makes a valid point that nonsexual kinds of grooming like spending time a child with and gift giving should not be used as evidence of molestation. I think the prosecution did have a witch hunt style especially when they went so far as to use a boy sitting next to Sandusky at a picnic as evidence of molestation.

      What boggles my mind is why so many parents, CYS, DPW and Second Mile would have allowed boys under their supervision to have sleepovers with Sandusky. It was in the national news in 1993 that Michael Jackson had sleepovers with boys, and he paid a huge settlement for a charge of child molestation. Why isn't letting a boy have a sleepover with an unrelated man tantamount to child endangerment?

    6. Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis.

    7. The Michael Jackson case is fascinating. The first serious allegation against Michael Jackson of child abuse was by a father involved in a divorce. The Mother of the child introduced the child to Michael Jackson to the child's delight. The father went ballistic when he could not match the mother. Johnnie Cochran talked Michael Jackson into settling the case at great expense. But that left a cloud over Jackson that led to his prosecution when grifters attempted to extort a settlement for themselves. Michael Jackson was found not guilty, but for prudence he moved out of California.

      Suppose Michael Jackson let a bunch of kids stay by themselves in a bedroom. If anything happened - a fight perhaps - Michael Jackson would have been sued to the wind. My understanding is that Dottie Sandusky and other Sandusky children were home when Second Mile kids slept over. To ban sleepovers would lead to banning boy scout camping.

      People have different opinions about raising children. I think corporal punishment is appropriate for some, while others want corporal punishment to be criminal assault. I washed by toddlers while I showered for convenience. I stopped that practice when they were becoming aware of their sexuality. Others find nudity with children taboo under all cases.

      But a person should not get an effective life sentence on decorum alone. Something substantial needs to be proved with real evidence. There was no real evidence against Sandusky. McQueary kept details of what he saw in 2001 to himself for years. His testimony came from recovered memory. The janitor testimony should never have been admitted. That left testimony by "victims" who said nothing for years and then said their high powered lawyers were to help with the media.

      Bob Costas and Jon Stewart, both successful and decent men, found Sandusky's interview with Costas as proof of something. Stewart in particular broke my heart. He rode the irrationality of the case for war with Iraq for months on end, and rightly so. Then he made the same errors with respect to Sandusky. He is a jackass at times.

      One should take care with emotional reactions. One woman was physically affected by Joe Paterno's not doing the right thing. The alleged rape happened many hours before Joe could have known so time was not of the essense and Paterno acted as soon as praticable. We now know that the rape was just made up by a pervert in the OAG. That calumny seems to be OK with the public. It makes you wonder.

  9. It will be interesting to see what Moulton produces. While I am skeptical of Kane, Moulton seems to be really competent. There was so much misconduct by the prosecution in this case that something must be done. At a minimum Frank Fina should be charged with subordination of perjury for fabricating the Janitor Hoax and conspiring with victims and their attorneys to give false or distorted testimony.

    I have no compassion for Jerry Sandusky. It is the Constitution of the United States that was violated by Linda Kelly and her subordinates.

    1. Greg,
      Agree. Corbett, Kelly, the prosecutors, and judges made a mockery of the system. They need to face justice.


    2. When a pervert in the OAG makes up the anal rape of victim #2 charge how can you believe anything said against Sandusky? No valid assertions of molestation was made prior to the victim's advocate and ardent investigators got involved. Except for Aaron Fisher not one guy did anything to stop Sandusky even after they aged out of Second Mile.

      People believe that Sandusky was using Penn State Showers as rape rooms, Paterno knew, and Paterno did not stop it. That scenario is as false as any story can be. Why people still believe the calumny is beyond me.

      The same with Sandusky. There is no credible evidence that Sandusky molested anybody. Ray Blehar uses grooming and patterns against the man.

      What really makes me mad is that there were over 40 community madness cases in the 1980s. People believed crazy things including the dismemberment of babies. Over 100 persons were wrongly convicted. About half of them were eventually exonerated. The failure of our courts in these cases will rip out your heart.

      Sadly, justice evades us as Ms. Coakley, one of the crazy prosecutors in the Amirault case in Boston, recently ran for the Senate and is running for Governor of Masseshuetts. She is likely to win. I was happy to see Walter Olson of pick up on this.

    3. No evidence of sexual intent? The testimony of victims who had oral sex performed on them as children; when JS performed oral sex on them. MM. The janitor. Even a coach who walked in on JS lying on AF, eyes shut, deriving pleasure from his depraved actions.

      It is funny how the objective accounts of AF all turned out to be true ... JS taking him out of class, AF hiding in the bathroom, JS chasing AF from school to his house b/c JS was not getting sex from a child.

      You personally sound like a NAMBLA spokesman. You say the same thing that NAMBLA said .. men and boys used to be naked together in Greece. A step further, Men forced boys to have anal and oral sex on them. NAMBLA uses this as justification for Man/boy sex now. You are right there.

      Now you talk of being in PSU's showers. I wonder why I am not surprised. Tell me, did you shower with boys? Lather up their bodies? Put shampoo in their hair and wash it out? Admit that your genitals may have contacted a boy? Identify yourself as the tickle monster? JS did all of this on his first "date" in 1998 in the PSU showers.

      You should be forced to be raped by a man 3 times your size. You should have to listen to others talk about the rapists "joys of vigorous exercise". You should end up choking on your own bile, and ending up with the tickle monster for eternity, where you belong.

    4. While I do not agree with all that WB says re JS, it is always good to have someone challenge the conclusions of the masses, especailly in mass hysteria cases like this one. History is replete with the wrongul conviction of the innocent. One only need look at the recent cases involving the convicted being released after 25 years becuse of DNA evidence. JJ, presumably the torment of rotting in prison for a crime one did not commit equals that of "being raped by a man 3 times your size". Are you suggesting that all of those involved in the process resulting in the conviction of the innocent "choke on [thiei] own bile. JJ, be careful what you ask for.

  10. WBill,
    Sandusky admitted that the "tested boundaries" with some of these victims. What do you think that means? The things I cited above were testified to by Victim 6 in 1998 - before anyone had lawyered up. These are signs of sexual abuse and for some molesters, that's all the farther they need to go to derive sexual pleasure from the experience.

    Now, I don't agree with JJ on everything (particularly the now disproven claims of the janitor and the unreliable testimony of McQueary), but the things he mentioned all happened in 1998 and that's when the state officials should have recognized what they were dealing with - instead of truncating the investigation.

  11. Is there any kind of time line when we can expect Kane or the Feds to take any kind of actions? Is there any kind of time line for when the Curley/ Schultz/ Spanier trials get moving? I keep hoping to see the "Duke Lacrosse" moment when the news is faced with its premature reporting, but is that in the cards in the near future?

    1. I know you have directed this question to Ray of course, but I feel compelled to comment. I feel the same way you do, and most of the people in PA that can see the incredible injustice done to PSU. When is something going to be done about the blatantly illegal actions of the PA government officials that are covering their crimes? Sadly, I believe Kane's interests are in appeasement and not justice. She has bought into a mentality of minimizing the damage done to public trust in government. And this is why Pennsylvania will remain one of the most corrupt states in the Union.
      When investigations into government criminal acts are deemed "no time frame", this is to make it fall into the background and help the public forget. We can not let Kane milk this out any longer. She knows full-well, with Corbett in full power as Governor, there is an active daily effort to disappear records. That's the first thing Corbett made sure of. He allowed Second Mile to flee the state with its records. Put the pressure on Kane and ask, "are the Feds involved, and are you pointing them towards Texas where Second Mile is hiding out? Also, ask her, "why do you allow a criminal to remain in power, as Governor, to thwart your investigation?".

    2. First, Kane is not running the investigation -- Geoffrey Moulton is. Moulton was told to leave no stone unturned. As you know from what is written above, his team is investigating at CMHS. I also have heard they have interviewed individuals involved in the 1998 Sandusky investigation. It then appears that Moulton is doing as advertised.

      While some evidence can be destroyed, other evidence can't. Tax return held by the IRS, campaign finance reports, employment records, banking transactions, and travel and other expense reports are examples of some of the information that will be obtained in the Moulton (and Federal) investigations.

      I would much rather see a thorough investigation that unravels the web of deceit than something quick that only catches the small fish.

    3. I suppose you're right Ray, you make good points. I'm just incredibly cynical at this point. After witnessing the most egregious state government assault on innocent citizens that I have ever witnessed in my life, complete with false testimony and fabricated evidence, I'm still trying to wake myself. Here's hoping Moulton and Kane will actually destroy this web of deceit and corruption once and for all in PA. And thank God for you too Ray!

    4. All I want to know is a time frame. The longer things go "under the radar", the more the "Pedophile State University" story goes unquestioned in the main stream media. There are a couple of "journalists" who I'd like to see humiliated for their poor reporting... Buzz Bissinger comes to mind. That's not a good reason to rush things, I know, but is there at least a time frame when these major investigations and law suits will start to bear fruit?

    5. Fortunately or unfortunately, as an investigation like this progresses, more leads and more people are found to be involved. So, the investigation will broaden and it might take years to gather the evidence to haul everybody in. Watch a few episodes of American Greed to get an idea about how these investigations go. Also, this may be instructive