Thursday, June 26

PennLive Editorial Board Caught Lying About Victim 9's Abuse

On June 25, 2014, the PennLive Editorial Board wrote this falsehood about Victim 9's abuse:

"As of now, there is no publicly-available proof of Kane's claim that the perplexing delays in bringing charges against Sandusky allowed him to continue abusing boys past March 2009."

PennLive's  June 14, 2012 column (below) definitively reported that abuse occurred through Victim 9's sixteenth birthday in 2009.  According to the trial transcripts, his birthday was July 29, 1993.

"For nearly four years, until 2009, he said, he slept at Sandusky's house almost every weekend. The abuse occurred on most of those occasions, he said.

Sometimes he would scream and tell Sandusky to stop molesting him, he said, but "there was no fighting against it."

The man said he finally had enough when he was 16 in 2009 and called his mom to come get him at Sandusky's home. "I didn't tell her why," he said."

-- Matt Miller, PennLive, June 14, 2012

PennLive's obfuscation of the truth continued when the editorial board cited two articles as proof of "inconclusiveness."  Both articles fell well short on providing a full review of the facts.

"However, court records that might confirm or reject her claim about Victim 9 are inconclusive, according to reporting by PennLive's Charles Thompson and the Philadelphia Inquirer."

Neither reporter provided a quote from the transcript of the Sandusky trial, in which Victim 9's testimony under cross-examination was definitive that he was abused until the age of 16.  Thompson stated that the  "start and ending dates of that relationship were never precise, however, and by some interpretations of his testimony the abuse may have stretched into 2009."

What is imprecise is Thompson's statement.  You can read the relevant part of Victim 9's transcript below, which is definitive that the abuse stopped at age 16.

The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote: "Prosecutors in court documents said the abuse ended in 2008. On the stand, the victim was unsure about the year it ended. In a 2013 lawsuit, he claimed the abuse continued until 2009."

There is no uncertainty or equivocation by Victim 9 at all about when it ended.  The Inquirer is lying too.

The Inquirer's reference to the court document was specific to the (revised) May 18, 2012, Bill of Particulars -- which stated the date of the crimes ended in 2008.  However that doesn't tell the full story.  The previous Bill of Particulars from February matched the Victim's testimony, stating that 2009 (and age 16) was the end date of the abuse.  You can read those below.

It really doesn't matter what the Bill of Particulars said because it was a pre-trial document. The victim's testimony is what the jury heard.  Victim 9, who was 18 when he testified, was not trying to overcome a distant memory like many of the other victims.  His abuse had stopped just two years earlier. 

No amount of lying and obfuscation by news reporters after the fact changes the Victim's testimony.  As the Inquirer noted, his lawsuit also contends he was abused until 2009. 

The Soon to Be Told, Untold Story

In what has become a disgusting ritual in this case, the PennLive editorial board and its staff biased its reporting based on a skewed view of the evidence.  Once again, PennLive omitted evidence and published known falsehoods to keep the stink off Governor Corbett, the Pennsylvania government officials, and others who let Sandusky continue to be a public menace for decades.

Then PennLive editorial board closed it column with this jaw-dropping statement:

"Instead, we have proof of distressingly sloppy work by the state's chief law enforcement officer."

After reading a 339 page report detailing an inexcusably slow investigation that was filled with procedural errors, the editorial board criticized Kathleen Kane for sloppy work?

PennLive's lack of journalistic ethics is without limits and the gauge on their morality has been broken for years.


  1. Very sad to see such a lack of journalistic integrity.

    PN, and others, are doing the same for Governor Corbett's current claim that "I've never condemned Paterno, 'never will'"

    Corbett already condemned Paterno back in Nov. 2011, and it's easy to locate his quotes online.

    Corbett on Paterno right after the firing:

    "In my opinion, when you don't follow through, when you don't continue on to make sure that actions are taken, then I lose confidence in your ability to lead. That would be the case here."

    "The actions or the failure to act while maybe not criminal, caused me not to have confidence in the president and in the coach."

    Ironic how Governor Corbett's quote on "when you don't follow through, when you don't continue on to make sure that actions are taken" is exactly what Moulton's report documents about Attorney General Corbett's "failure to act" to adequately investigate and arrest Sandusky from March 2009 to Jan. 2011 when he left the office.

  2. I'm particularly concerned that readers of these PA newspapers (hardcopy and online) may not dig deeper for fuller analyses or opinions on the Sandusky case.

    Is there someone(s) who is NOT immediately dismissed by the anti-Blehar crowd who could provide a high-profile response to this editorial and other inaccurate reports from PA news organizations? Perhaps Tim Berton, if he's not widely seen as a notpsu commenter?

    Ray, would this be a good time for you to go back onto Steve Miller's "On The Record" to specifically address the inaccuracies of PA reporting?

    I keep hoping that Nancy Phillips will take up this mess. She was instrumental in getting Bill Conlin off the streets.

    1. It should come from someone who is a public figure, maybe a legal reporter or a journalist.

      It's too bad legal experts have not weighed in on many of these issues, such as what is the probable cause required to get a search warrant for Sandusky's house or subpoena his phone records?

      Does a boy testifying to a grand jury that he was repeatedly subject to sex acts with Sandusky in his basement and the mother's testimony that her son frequently slept over in Sandusky's basement plus the grooming behaviors, lavish gifts and excessive phone calls provide enough probable cause for a search warrant in a child abuse case?

      Did the dozens of phone calls Sandusky made to victim 1 and his mother, plus the above, provide probable cause to get a subpoena for Sandusky's phone records. Those records would have undoubtedly revealed several of his other victims.

    2. Hi, Ray.

      On page 208 of the transcript, #9 says that he was 15 when he quit going to Sandusky's. On page 230, he said "...16, 15 or 16." I think it's safe to say he doesn't remember. His time spent with Sandusky conflicts with his mother's version and #1's, considering both victims say they were there during the same time period, alone, but never saw the other. #9 claims in his lawsuit that JoePA invited him and Sandusky to have lunch at Beaver Stadium and tour the stadium. He said his mother called the police, she said someone else called. Possibly a misunderstanding? There are too many discrepancies with this one. Not to mention his facebook post with the dollar sign $ in August 2012.

      I'm sure you've been watching the progress of his court case. I wonder if he played the victim card? Charges such as these don't normally just go away, especially when you are caught red-handed with the illegal items. ARD, possibly (like his charges from 10/11/11), but not just Withdrawn.

      Another victim who settled with PSU and also went public with his name used the victim card at his recent sentencing. You may already know, but his name is Justin Rielly Nauman, from Lancaster. Google him.

      PSU settled with another victim who was represented by Charles Schmidt. In that case, while at a Second Mile Event, JS took him to an office at PSU, plied him with alcohol (whiskey), raped him, cleaned him up, then handed him off to a Second Mile Counselor. Although the AG's office investigated this 19 year old's claims, they did not use him at trial.. yet PSU settled with him.

      PSU settled with another John Doe, a black man raised in Dauphin County. He was molested by Sandusky in 2005 at the PSU pool. Sandusky approached him, fondled his genitals and said "What have we here?" That's pretty bold of Sandusky to do/say that in a public place.

      At some point, each person's story needs to be evaluated based on their credibility, actions, words and characters. We as a society, are now giving these people the opportunity to commit future crimes, with little or no punishment because they are "victims of Jerry Sandusky." This will be okay until one of them severely hurts or kills another person. Public court records indicate that MANY of these victims had family problems WAY before getting involved in the Second Mile, with Sandusky, and before stepping foot on PSU property.

      I find it disturbing that #3 had a recent picture of himself and his dog on Facebook and a friend says "Where's the peanut butter, you ticklemonster?" #3's response was "Couldn't just leave it be a good picture of me and my dog could you? Lol"

      The fact that he is able to joke with his friends about the "ticklemonster" tells me that he is in recovery and his way to putting this behind him.

      Keep up the good work!

    3. Penn State probably settled with several victims who they didn't think were especially credible just to put it behind them.

      All the lawsuits before 2001 seemed like nuisance lawsuits. In a nuisance lawsuit, the defendant probably could win in court but doesn't want the negative publicity and the high litigation costs. They offer the plaintiff a settlement, which is usually less than the estimated litigation costs.

      We don't know what some of these plaintiff accepted. Their settlements may have been low 6 figures or less. The biggest settlements went to the victims molested after 2001, especially victim 1.

      Victim 9, who looks like he was Sandusky's final victim, hasn't settled yet. He was asking for a lot more than Penn State thought was reasonable. Is his lawsuit a tactic to up the settlement amount or does he really want to get Sandusky and others on the witness stand?

      I suspect the lawsuit is a tactic to up the settlement but we'll have to wait and see.

    4. A very reliable source told me that Penn State settled with almost anyone who had a plausible story and were willing to accept at or below the $2M per incident payout...Victims 6 and 9 were unwilling to settle.

      Three were refused because their stories weren't plausible.

  3. In my opinion, victim 9 joins Aaron Fisher, Matt Sandusky, Mike McQueary, Louis Freeh, and Frank Fina on my list of pathological liars.

    I happen to believe Dottie Sandusky when she said that #9 was treated well when he was her guest, and that she didn't hear a whimper out of him. I simply cannot believe that a 15 year old boy would spend night after night at the Sandusky's, of his own free will, knowing that he would be abused. His lunch with Paterno story belongs in the Journal of Psychiatric Pathology.

    Unfortunately, the politically correct have given multiple people a willey-nilley license to lie without the fear of any serious analysis of their claim. PSU's settling with these liars is an abomination. I personally do not feel that JS is guilty of anything beyond misdemeanor level "lewd acts" with boys with which he felt that he had a relationship. It is very difficult to analyze a situation where there is absolutely no physical evidence and no corroboration of stories, and a tremendous financial incentive to lie and enhance, both for accusers and their attorneys.

    I note that Louis Freeh used ignorance of the law by the general public to make malicious remarks about PSU administrators, esp. concerning the 1998 investigation. He KNEW that PSU personnel were legally forbidden to take any averse action against JS after the complaint was deemed "unfounded", yet he castigated them anyway.

  4. I find it very surprising if no settlement was above $2 M. The Penn State negotiator must have been very good if he accomplished that as some of the victims seemed to have much stronger claims than others, particularly those after 2001.

    It also seems surprising that victim 6 didn't accept $2M, given that his abuse was much less frequent and severe than some of the others and his case was promptly investigated by police and child protection agencies at the time.

    1. Victim 6 had a smart lawyer. He knew if PSU was offering $2M that there was something more to the story.

      Conversely, Victim 1's lawyer expected he would be representing a "class" of victims (his firms specialty) when he took the case. When that didn't pan out, he took the quick payoff and got out.

      The math adds up. PSU settled with 29 victims for around $60M. They expect their insurer is going to pay for it all. The insurer has said no -- based in part on the Freeh Report stating PSU knew and covered it up.

      Gotta give Victim 6's lawyer credit for pushing the same issue.

    2. The Penn State negotiator said the settlement offers depended on factors such as the severity of abuse, whether abuse was on Penn State property and the year(s) when the abuse occurred. Based on that, victim 6's claim did not seem worth anything close to $2 million unless victim 1 was getting several times that amount.

      I still doubt every victim got the same amount. There are a lot of ways that $59.7 million could be divided among the 26 victims who settled. Even an equal split is over $2 million per victim at $2.3 million per victim.

      One hypothetical split would be 25 victims at $2 million each, which would leave $9.7 million for one victim.

    3. Tim,
      Penn State is far too cheap to pay anyone out of their own pockets. It was settle for the insurance payout or take a hike. The max was $3M and from what I understand, Victim 5 got the biggest payout.

  5. Finally found one reporter, Patty Kleban of, willing to call out Corbett for lying that he never condemned Paterno and never would. Too bad she didn't put Corbett's name in the headline.,1459793/

    She said "At the time of Paterno's firing, Corbett, who participated in that fateful board meeting in a telephone hook-up, was quoted as saying that Paterno and former Penn State President Graham Spanier's 'actions caused me to not have confidence in their ability to lead.'

    That sure sounds like a condemnation to me."