Until we can find/post an audio, here is a recap for those who may not have had a chance to listen (based on my memory of the interview).
WRSC: Thoughts of the Dottie Sandusky interview?
Ray: Much like last week's ESPN article on Mike McQueary, the Dottie Sandusky interview didn't "move the needle" of public opinion at all. The public believes that Dottie is either in denial or delusional. Her interview did little to change that perception.
WRSC: Do you believe Sandusky is guilty of everything he was charged with?
Ray: I have written at least 50 pages on the problems with the Sandusky investigation and the issue here is not Sandusky's guilt as much as it is that the investigation was conducted by narcotics agent who had investigated less than 10 CSA cases. As a result, the took the victim's statements at face value and didn't evaluate them like an experienced CSA investigator would have done. The prosecutors charged according to the evidence brought to them by the investigator. I've pointed out that the janitor incident is a complete hoax and other victims exaggerated the crimes, but at the end of the day Sandusky was guilty of at least 25 crimes. Sandusky was evaluated by two psychologists who both concluded he had a psycho-sexual disorder. He's where he belongs.
WRSC: What is the status of the Federal investigation of The Second Mile?
Ray: The investigation is being led by Gordon Zubrod, who was the prosecuting attorney in the Kids for Cash scandal in Luzerne County. He is notoriously slow. He is being assisted by Michael Consiglio. The investigation is looking at the financials of the charity. Last December or January I wrote a series called Second Mile's Financial Statements Don't Add Up, where I found that they had understated revenues and padded expenses. The federal investigation will take time because they are not getting any help from an insider and have to trace money through banks and other places. It's a complex investigation. Just watch an episode of American Greed to get an idea of the techniques used, such as wiretaps and traces.
WRSC: Lexicon communications wrote a piece on the screw ups by the Board in responding to the Sandusky scandal. What did you think?
Ray: First, the presentment was leaked on November 4 and the Board fired Paterno on November 9th. They had five days to do a legal review. This was not a panic situation. There were three lawyers on the Board as regular members and at least four who were emeritus trustees. Kenneth Frazier, was the General Counsel of Merck who decided to litigate the Vioxx cases individually saving Merck millions of dollars. Are you telling me he didn't review the law before they made the decisons that they made. I don't buy it. This was a purposeful act and the Board knew in advance they were gonna can Joe and Graham. However, the piece by Steven Fink was on the money in several respects in terms of not managing the crisis and the hamhanded attempt at rebranding PSU. As Fink said, "We don't need a new brand. We need a new Board."
WRSC: The entire board or just a small group?
Ray: Just a small cabal of trustees. The power group. Ben Novak has written about Board structure and there is the power group and the rest are just along for the ride. There was no vote to fire Joe as much as it was a suggestion by Surma. Al Clemens was calling in by phone from the airport and hardly knew what was happening. Surma made the motion and no one objected. A few days later the Executive Committee voted to make it official. But this was all planned in advance.
WRSC: What do you think about Board reform?
Ray: Reform is needed. The power group needs to be broken up. The Business and Industry group needs to be changed so that it just can't appoint members.
WRSC: What are your thoughts on the Kane investigation?
Ray: I have a lot of confidence in the Kane investigation or more properly, the investigation led by Geoffrey Moulton. My Report 3 gave a preview of some of the things the investigation should find, such as the failure to follow up on leads and sitting on evidence. I believe it will find misconduct by prosecutor Frank Fina. If you read the filing by Spanier attorney, Tim Lewis, it states that there was misconduct by Fina and the grand jury judge in letting Spanier believe he was being represented by Cynthia Baldwin.
WRSC: The grand jury judge?
Ray: Yes, Judge Feudale, who was already removed as a grand jury judge by Kane. He made very poor decisons in the case. The presentment should have been sealed because it was so inflammatory it contaminated the jury pool.
WRSC: What do you believe will happen with the trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier?
Ray: I hope it goes to trial because the evidence is so weak. Essentially, the prosecution has the testimony of Cynthia Baldwin and a couple e-mails. That's it. Of course, it is up to Judge Hoover to decide what will got to trial. If he rules Baldwin was not representing the PSU Three then their grand jury testimony will be tossed and there goes the perjury charges. Hoover could also rule that the failure to report charges should be dismissed and if so, then the Endangerment charges are out the window too. That would leave conspiracy and obstruction, which is all predicated on Baldwin's testimony. And Baldwin has been contradicted by almost everyone else who testified for the prosecution.