Recent columns by CNN's Sara Ganim and PN's Charlie Thompson turned back the clock on the crimes committed against Victim 9.
As the lawsuit for Victim 9 splashed into the news last week, the Associated Press reported that Victim 9 had been abused past his sixteenth birthday into the Fall of 2009. The Collegian reported that Victim 9 met Sandusky in 2005 and his abuse spanned four years.
Those media accounts match the trial testimony, which also stated that Victim 9 was sixteen when the abuse finally ended. Victim 9 was born on July 29, 1993, which places his abuse into late 2009.
However, Patriot News staffer Charles Thompson wrote on November 22nd, that Victim 9's attorneys were suing for abuse that took place between 2005 and 2008, shaving the last year off the time frame of the crimes (my emphasis added).
The new plaintiff's attorneys, asserting that their client suffered among the worst of the injuries inflicted by Sandusky on any boy through a period from 2005 through 2008, disagree.
Former Patriot News staffer and Pulitzer Prize winner, Sara Ganim, now reporting for CNN, also truncated the years of Victim 9's abuse in her November 21st article, stating that his abuse ended "about the time that another victim's allegations started a police investigation." (Hat tip, JimmyW)
Piers Morgan, opposite John Ziegler, in March 2013.
Obviously, Ganim was not being completely truthful with her statement because she fled the courtroom right before she was to be called as a witness in the case. As a result, the attorneys stipulated that Ganim had passed the contact information for an investigator to the mother of one of the victims in the event the mother wished to contact authorities.
But more to the point, if Ganim sat through the trial every single day and listened to the testimony of the victims, then she had to know that Victim 9 stated his abuse occurred up until he was sixteen and thus into 2009.
So, the million dollar question is why do the Patriot News, Ganim, and Thompson, continue to obsfuscate the end date of this crime?
Are they protecting DPW? Who should have insisted that The Second Mile put a protection plan in place to keep Sandusky away from children.
Or are they protecting The Second Mile? Who knowingly let Sandusky access children after they knew he was under investigation?
As I wrote in last week's blogpost, Ganim wrote in her five part-series on The Second Mile (in August 2012) that the charity immediately banned Sandusky from interacting with children and advised him not to contact children in outside activities after learning of his investigation in November 2008.
Raykovitz, a well-known and respected child psychologist in central Pennsylvania, immediately removed Sandusky from all events involving children, and strongly urged him to stay away from children outside of charity functions, too.
However, that passage has been debunked because several news reports from The Progress, a local news outlet serving Clearfield, Curwensville, Philipsburg, and Moshannon Valley, reported that Sandusky would be speaking at the Clearfield County Chapter of The Second Mile's all sports banquet to be held on March 1, 2009. From the article....
Dinner will follow at 5:30 p.m. in the high school cafeteria before those in attendance move to the auditorium where The Second Mile founder Jerry Sandusky will speak, and the players will share stories about their journeys to becoming collegiate student-athletes.
The evidence is clear in this case. The Second Mile kept the Sandusky investigation under wraps and did not immediately prevent Sandusky from future access to children.
It's also clear that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare did not have an effective policing or enforcement method in place to ensure Sandusky's access was cut off.
The other thing that's clear is that some people in Harrisburg, the Patriot News, and Ganim don't want you to know about it.