Monday, June 30

Jennifer Storm's "Wild Spin" of Tom Corbett's Sandusky Investigation

Corbett appointee Jennifer Storm goes to bat for her boss in this Patriot News Op-Ed....and the Patriot News plays along.

By
Ray Blehar

Today's Op-Ed by Jennifer Storm, titled "Don't Forget Everything Tom Corbett Did Right In the Sandusky Case" provides a delusional view of the investigation that was NOT directed by now Governor Tom Corbett.

As Geoffrey Moulton's report clearly revealed, Corbett didn't politicize the investigation for the mere fact that he didn't direct anyone to do anything.  Given that finding, Storm's article praising what Corbett did right is simply her fantasy about what happened.

Storm was appointed by Governor Corbett to be the Pennsylvania State Victim's Advocate.  She previously served as victim's advocate for Dauphin County and is on a number of state boards and commissions, including the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (which was once Corbett's stomping ground as chairman in the late 1990s).  

Of course, the Patriot News didn't reveal any of that information.

Readers of the blog may remember my letter chastising Storm and other self-proclaimed victim's advocates for pretending to know how Sandusky's victims felt about the Paterno Report and for their failures to speak out about the breakdowns in Pennsylvania's child protection system. 

And she continues to shill for Pennsylvania's broken system today.


PA No Longer An Outlier?

Today, Storm wrote this falsehood about Pennsylvania's child protection system.


"Three years ago, Gov. Corbett commissioned a task force to review state laws on child abuse. Experts including child welfare workers, rape crisis advocates, pediatricians and law enforcement released a report in November 2012.

Most of its recommendations were drafted into laws and, thanks to their adoption, Pennsylvania is no longer a statistical outlier when it comes to protecting its children."

Apparently, being DEAD LAST in child abuse reports at 8 per 1,000  children and in child abuse findings at 1.3 per 1,000 children is good news to Storm.

This is indeed a statistical outlier -- and it's the rock bottom.

Like the sun rising in the east, you can count on Corbett's handlers to trot out Jennifer Storm whenever the prepackaged narrative of the Sandusky scandal is challenged.  She was trotted out at the outset of the Sandusky mess to opine about the then unsubstantiated allegations of PSU's  failure to report Sandusky and to call for tougher penalties on reporting. 

In keeping up her role as a defender of the status quo, Storm crafted this fabrication:

"The Moulton Report didn't help with its rearview mirror scrutiny of the career prosecutors and investigators who built the Sandusky case -- a case then-Attorney General Tom Corbett did not hesitate to take on."

Moulton's report showed the exact opposite of Storm's fantasy.  It took a full year, from March 2009 until March 2010, for the office to recommend charging Sandusky because basic investigative steps were not taken, including searching Sandusky's home. 

 And again, Corbett wasn't directing anyone to do anything.

What did Corbett do right?  Absolutely nothing.

Not Rushing Along??

Storm really had no idea what can of worms she opened with this statement:

"If Corbett's prosecutors had rushed headlong and arrested Sandusky on the word of one, reluctant witness, Sandusky would be walking free today. We can only tremble to think of what else he  might be doing.

Because of careful police work and careful case-building, eight brave young men took the witness stand and helped in the most successful prosecution and conviction of a celebrity serial sexual predator this country has ever seen."

Once again, the Patriot News editorial board failed to check its own archive for the truth about how investigators didn't want to rush into building the case.  The Patriot News deleted much of Sara Ganim's  January 8, 2012 column about the foot-dragging by investigators in the FREE public version of the story, , but you could read the full article by paying or searching web archives for it.  

The mother of Victim 6 reported that the AG didn't want to pursue her son's case, which led to finding four of Sandusky's victims.   Without that mother, the case wouldn't have been built...and the AG was going to take a pass on it. 




Given what we've seen from Jennifer Storm, she will probably write another Op-Ed and accuse the mother of lying.


Victim's Advocate Slams Victims

The coup de grace in Storm's article was that she essentially called two victims liars in order to protect her boss, Tom Corbett.

Kane's wild spin of the report's findings, including her now-retracted assertion that Sandusky continued to molest boys during the investigation, sent the unnerving message that speed, rather than care, should the new standard.

Apparently, she didn't bother reading the trial transcript in which Victim 9 was definitive that his abuse ended after July 29, 2009 when he was sixteen.  In addition, Storm is lining up behind the prosecutors who said the second victim was not credible enough to be prosecuted. 

When does a victim's advocate question a victim's story?

When her concern isn't protecting children -- it's protecting her boss.




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.


Wednesday, June 25

Early thoughts (and finds) on Moulton's Investigation

Moulton's investigation signals the beginning of the end of the charade known as the "Penn State sex scandal"

By
Ray Blehar

Special Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Moulton's investigation of the Sandusky investigation didn't deliver a fatal blow to Governor Tom Corbett.  Of course, once it was known that Moulton didn't have subpoena power and that the investigation was an internal review, everyone's expectations should have been tempered.

At least one criminal investigation is underway by the Feds at the present time and it will bring us closer to finding out the truth about the role of The Second Mile and, most likely, government entities involved.

As for the key findings -- they were almost exactly as I had predicted on the day before the release of the report.  Moulton found the pace of the investigation to be to slow, with "inexcusable" delays in getting warrants and in the failure to establish a multidisciplinary task force.  Not to blow my own horn, but I was first to coin this investigation as "inexcusable" last July (and PS4RS, Eileen Morgan, and I were mentioned in the footnote on page 4 of the report).


While Moulton's investigation was comprehensive, it lacked many of the details that were included in Report 3, such as the fact that many of the victims had "dockets" in the court system that investigators could have used to find them (sooner).  Also, it did not point out the failures by police to identify Victims 9 and 10, even though both individuals were named on camper lists and had asterisks next to their names.

The timeline was most beneficial in really understanding what happened in the investigation.  Again, it was very similar to the timeline in Report 3, which showed investigative activities ramping up in April.  Moulton's report revealed the investigation got busier in January, but the most activity occurred in May.  This fact supports the conclusion that electoral politics did not have as much of a role as perhaps other influences (more to come on that).  The Moulton report also concluded - in conflict with the Patriot News -- that additional resources were not significant in finding additional victims.

Finally, this report is far from the complete story.  It bears repeating that Moulton lacked subpoena power and could not compel anyone to testify.  The Pennsylvania State Police refused to make their officers available, thus the report relies on paper police reports (which may not be entirely accurate).

Abuse During Investigation

The bombshell of the day came when AG Kathleen Kane announced that two victims had been abused in the fall of 2009, while the investigation was still lagging.  That led to an outcry by the reporters, who strangely forgot that victims names should be kept confidential, and eventually by police and prosecutors, who challenged the veracity of Kane's statement.  Fina, McGettigan, and Noonan denied any knowledge of a victim being abused in 2009 in statements to the press.

The press then went on the attack today, decrying the error in Kane's statement.  Kane had mispoke, stating the victimization may have been prevented with an earlier arrest, however, she was incorrect on at least one of the victims (Victim 9 who had suffered continuous abuse from 2005 to 2009).   In any event, Victim 9 could have been spared from some abuse had Sandusky been apprehended sooner.

 As for the second victim, Kane stands by her story.  The later victim came forward in 2012.

The Patriot News is not only NOT expressing any moral outrage, but continues to deny Victim 9's abuse into 2009, stating "there is no evidence that the worst case scenario occurred."  This blog reported on Victim 9's abuse during the Sandusky investigation and its cover-up by the Patriot News in a number of blogposts.

It will continue to do so at every opportunity.

Finds

After just a cursory review of the 336 page report, some interesting information pops out.

1.  In a June 3, 2011 email, Agent Anthony Sassano complained about then-PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin stonewalling and filing motions to thwart subpoena requests.  This evidence will come in handy should Curley, Schultz, and Spanier ever go to trial.

2. Trooper Scott Rossman received a thumb drive of Penn State emails on July 7, 2011.  This is significant for several reasons, but first among them is that it is more evidence that Louis Freeh lied about making "independent discovery" of the email evidence on 20 March 2012.  The second issue is that it shows an apparent time lag between the turnover of the emails by PSU (in April 2011) to the OAG and the OAG's release of them to the police.

3.  Victim 5 was first identified in January 2011, but not interviewed by police until June 7, 2011.  He was one of the original four possible victims identified by the mother of Victim 6 and her daughter.  The report gives no explanation for the delay in finding him, however, Report 3 revealed he had a "court docket" in the system that could have been used to find his address.

4.  A New York Times reporter knocked on the door of Victim 1's home and was asking pointed questions in November 2010.  Review of the Sandusky trial transcripts revealed that the reporter was a male who first contacted a neighbor of Fisher's.  The neighbor, Josh Fravel, directed the reporter to the new address. (CORRECTION: Eshbach's email about a CDT reporter was not correct.  The reporter was from the New York Times)

5. The police interviewed janitor James Calhoun, however, the police reported he suffered from dementia at the time of his interview.  They also interviewed several other janitors.  Ironically, only one janitor testified at the trial.  Also, it is notable that none of Calhoun's three children testified to support the story.  I am keeping this incident in the hoax category.

6.  Despite the fact that two victims were abused by Sandusky in 2009, The Second Mile Executive Director continues to stand by his assertion that Sandusky was removed from all programs involving children in 2008.  See rebuttal, page 339.



Monday, June 23

OAG Press Release on Moulton Investigation


Monday, June 23, 2014

Attorney General Kane releases Sandusky review
Inexcusable delays throughout 2009 and 2010

HARRISBURG – A review of the Jerry Sandusky investigation released today by Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane confirmed that the investigation took too long because of crucial missteps and inexplicable delays in bringing a serial child molester to justice. The facts in the report show:
  • It took a full year, from March 2009 until March 2010, for the office to recommend charging Sandusky because basic investigative steps were not taken, including searching Sandusky's home.
  • In March 2010, career prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach circulated a draft presentment that recommended filing multiple charges against Sandusky, based on statements by Victim 1 and other corroborating evidence. But senior leadership at OAG failed to act on that recommendation for five months despite repeated requests from Eshbach and the mother of Victim 1; Eshbach was informed in August 2010 that more victims were necessary for the case to proceed and they were declining to charge Sandusky.
  • Then, in the months that followed, little effort was made to find any more victims or charge Sandusky, and the case was at a complete standstill until a tip was received by the Centre County District Attorney in November 2010.
"This was a full and fair review," Attorney General Kane said. "The facts show an inexcusable lack of urgency in charging and stopping a serial sexual predator. The report documents that more investigative work took place in just one month in 2011 than in all of either 2009 or 2010."

Special Deputy Attorney General H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr., working with Attorney General Kane and staff, led the review. Moulton was joined by Special Agent-In-Charge David Peifer, who oversees the Bureau of Special Investigations, including the agents in the Child Predator Section, and Senior Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, who has nearly 20 years of experience handling child sexual abuse cases.

"These types of post-action reviews are vitally important," Moulton said. "Our goal was to provide a factual, unbiased review of this investigation and to identify any ways that law enforcement can do a better job protecting children. Attorney General Kane made it clear to me from the beginning that this review was not about politics. This was about a core function of government – protecting children."

Moulton's review found no direct evidence that political directives drove any of the decisions made throughout the course of the investigation. However, the facts and the timeline in the report raise serious concerns regarding decisions made at the very outset of the probe in 2009 and throughout 2010 and 2011, which ultimately delayed the investigation and the presentment of charges. The report's key findings include:
  • In March 2010, prosecutor Eshbach circulated a draft presentment that recommended filing multiple charges against Sandusky, including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, a felony. But her pleas for a decision were ignored for five months. (See Appendix G.)

  • In August, five months later, senior leadership at OAG told Eshbach that the case would not proceed without more victims or better corroboration for Victim 1. The report notes that this was the first time in Eshbach's career that she had submitted a presentment to her supervisors that had not been approved promptly. (See page 53.)

  • The report found further inaction in 2009, and from August to November 2010, noting that, "… when Eshbach reported . . . … that her 'bosses have directed that we try harder to find any other corroboration for [A.F.],' little investigative activity apparently occurred. Indeed, once Eshbach submitted the draft presentment in March 2010, the only reported investigative activity before the end of August was the offer to Sandusky … to testify in the Grand Jury. … Not only does there appear to have been no concerted effort to identify additional victims, but no witnesses were interviewed and no subpoenas were served. Nor was there apparently any renewed discussion of searching Sandusky's residence or checking for earlier allegations of misconduct." (See pages 129-30.)
"This case sat inactive for months while a predator was on the streets and a victim waited for justice," Attorney General Kane said. "The Grand Jury presentment, drafted and supported by the lead prosecutor, sat on someone's desk for five months. Only after the lead prosecutor repeatedly pushed for an answer, the presentment was denied. It is unfathomable why there was such a lack of urgency."
In a response to the report, Eshbach's attorney wrote that Eshbach continues to believe charging Sandusky in early 2010 was the appropriate course of action (see Responses, Jonelle Eshbach), noting her own experience and that of other prosecutors.

The review suggests that had OAG taken basic measures at the outset of the probe, the issue of charging based on Victim 1's statements alone would likely have been moot because the additional evidence would have been in hand. These important but delayed steps included searching Sandusky's house, requesting records from local police and child protective services and seeking information from The Second Mile, among others.

The report notes that OAG did not search Sandusky's home for more than two years after the office received the case, 21 months after it was suggested by OAG's lead investigator, and more than one year after Eshbach wrote the first presentment. That search, once conducted, revealed valuable evidence. The report states that, "... the failure to search Sandusky's residence earlier in the investigation is difficult to defend." (See page 129.)

The report states: "As one expert in the investigation of child molesters put it: 'The major law-enforcement problem with the use of search warrants in child-sexual-victimization cases is that they are not obtained soon enough.' That was certainly the case in the Sandusky investigation. The search uncovered, among other things, many photographs of already-identified Sandusky victims, as well as lists of Second Mile campers with handwritten asterisks next to their names. Had the search been conducted in 2009 or 2010, investigators could have used the photographs and names with asterisks to find victims much earlier than they did." (See page 127.)

"We need to make sure that investigations don't further victimize the victims. The suggestion that a conviction erases the need to ensure missteps are not made again in the future is seriously flawed," Kane said. "The failure to search Sandusky's residence with appropriate urgency alone is both unexcused and inexcusable."

The review found that the decision to take the case to the Grand Jury was supported by Eshbach and her superiors, and ultimately Attorney General Tom Corbett, and was within their prosecutorial discretion.
The report notes, however, that, "... for long stretches of time before the investigation ramped up in 2011, the resources of the Grand Jury were barely used at all. From the beginning of January 2010 through the end of October 2010, for example, the Grand Jury issued no subpoenas for testimony and only one subpoena for records." (See page 105.)

"Prosecutors must act quickly and decisively to protect children from continued abuse and do all that is necessary to protect potential victims. While I don't agree with the decision to go to the Grand Jury, I recognize that prosecutors may differ. However, once you decide to use a Grand Jury, it is imperative that you take full and immediate advantage of its tools," Attorney General Kane said.

Moulton's report outlined several recommendations to continue reforming the way child sexual abuse is reported and investigated in Pennsylvania, including the following:
  • OAG should rely more heavily on collaborating with child sexual abuse investigators and children services at the local level where abuse is suspected to have occurred.
  • In high-priority cases, senior management in the Executive Office at OAG should be more involved, direct greater attention and make decisions more quickly.
  • OAG should make child abuse education and outreach a higher priority.
  • The Legislature's work on child abuse legislation should continue, including further consideration of legislative changes recommended by the Task Force on Child Protection that have not yet been enacted.
For more specific information on these recommendations, see Part Three of Moulton's Report. (See pages 132 through 141.)

 "I want to thank Mr. Moulton for his professionalism and for the public service he has provided," said Attorney General Kane.

"He fulfilled our mission of bringing the facts about this investigation to the public, despite obstacles such as the need to recover millions of emails prematurely deleted under a retention policy put in place by the Attorney General in 2011," she said. "The OAG team that assisted Mr. Moulton was led by Special Agent-In-Charge Peifer, Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka and Deputy Attorney General Marisa Lehr. As well, Senior Supervisory Special Agent Braden Cook developed the program to retrieve the deleted emails."
Moulton, an Associate Professor Emeritus at Widener University School of Law and a former federal prosecutor, was specifically appointed by Attorney General Kane as Special Deputy Attorney General to conduct this review.

He previously served as First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Chief of Staff and Deputy Special Inspector General for the U.S. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), and Project Director for the U.S. Department of Treasury's widely-praised report concerning the failed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas.

Sunday, June 22

"Preview" of Moulton's Report on the Sandusky investigation

While Moulton will not produce evidence that the investigation was slowed due to political purposes, there will be ample evidence that the investigation took far too long.

By
Ray Blehar

Last July, I published Report 3, which was my review of the evidence on the public record about the Sandusky investigation.

Tomorrow at 1030AM, AG Kathleen Kane will announce the results of the Moulton investigation.  Press reports to date indicated that the scope of the investigation was very narrow and limited to the 2008 to 2011 Sandusky investigation and did not look at prior investigations in 1998 or the prosecution of Sandusky.

Press reports to date have also indicated that the investigation did not find Corbett delayed it for political purposes.  On that point, I agree.  The timeline in Report 3 indicated that Corbett's motivation was personal, not political.  As the timeline below shows, the investigation continued to lag along after the November 2010 election and didn't take off until after the March 2011 budget battle between Corbett and Spanier.



I don't expect that Moulton will go as far as to assign motive for the delay.

Report 3 referenced Ken Lanning's manual, "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" and press reports indicated that Moulton interviewed Ken Lanning as part of the investigation.  As a result, expect the following points to be made regarding failures of the Sandusky investigation.


1) Failure to expeditiously obtain search warrants for Sandusky’s home and business areas.
2) Failure to form a multi-disciplinary task force to conduct the investigation.
3) Use of investigators without requisite background in child abuse investigations.

Report 3 also found the investigation to have faltered in performing routine investigative actions, such as:
1) running identification checks with the department of motor vehicles;
2) running criminal background checks; and
3) promptly following up on leads.

One of the key conclusions of Report 3 was that Sandusky could have been arrested by the end of the Summer of 2009, had the police and investigators followed the leads at their disposal.  In retrospect, I would adjust the date forward to the early summer of 2009, given that the police's first stop (after Sandusky's home) should have been The Second Mile.

Corbett and Fina

While early reports were that the report would be a "complete vindication" of Corbett, I suspect those reports are wrong.  Undoubtedly, Corbett will share some of the blame for the lagging investigation and, in the worst case, be identified as endangering the welfare of Victim 9 -- who was abused during the 2009 investigation.

The media has been silent about Frank Fina.  More importantly, the Fina camp has also been silent.  Given some of the highly unusual circumstances in the Sandusky case - most notably that the two most sensational crimes did not have known victims, one incident was based purely on hearsay, and that the grand jury presentment contained falsehoods -- Fina may be in more trouble than Corbett.

Corbett left the AG's office and accept the role of Governor in January 2011. In his wake, Pennsylvania State Police Chief, and formerly the head of the AG's Criminal Investigations Divsion, Frank Noonan, told the press that he was "involved in every resource decision" in the case and defended assigning just one state trooper to the case.

Similarly, then AG Bureau of Narcotics Supervisor, Randy Feathers, stated, “I was asked weekly if I had enough personnel.” He added, “I never asked for help until 2011 when we had many more subpoenas and more evidence. Then I got eight more troopers and four more agents.”

It appears that Noonan and Feathers took the heat off Corbett for the lack of resources for the Sandusky investigation.

Looking Forward to the Timeline and New Information

Scratching together information on the public record about the case was an interesting endeavor and, as I recently learned, building a completely accurate timeline was nearly impossible.  Court documents were extremely helpful in building the timeline, however, I can't say the same for the coverage by the Patriot News (P-N).

For example, the P-N reported that the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) obtained the 1998 University Park police report around the same time they talked with McQueary.   This would put their recovery of the report in November 2010.  Louis Freeh reported that the PSP recovered the file in January 2011.

Similarly, the P-N reported that Sara Ganim had found the mother of one of the victims while she was working for the Centre Daily Times.  However, later evidence revealed that Ganim found the mother of Victim 6 in January (after she had joined the P-N) and tracked down the mother of Aaron Fisher in February 2011.   (More to come on this in an upcoming report).

Moulton's report will contain an exhaustive timeline of the Sandusky investigation.  It will be very interesting to see who testified at the grand jury and when that testimony occurred.

I don't expect all of the answers tomorrow, but we will get to see and hear some new pieces of the puzzle.

And come a bit closer to finding the truth.






Friday, June 13

DiRaimo's Letter Reveals Leadership Void At PSU

Special Assistant's attempt to derail legislation raises questions about leadership, transparency, and professionalism. 

By
Ray Blehar

Wednesday's unanimous 11-0 vote by a Senate Committee confirmed that the alumni who have pushed for reforming the BOT are not vocal minority. With 36 co-sponsors on the bill, the majority of the PA Senate have sided with the alumni.

However, the unanimous vote by the committee may have been something else --  a harsh communication sent to PSU in response to an unprofessional letter sent by Special Assistant for Government Affairs, Michael DiRaimo.

DiRaimo made a last ditch attempt to derail the legislation by sending a six-page letter that touted the reforms the University made since the Sandusky scandal broke.

It was an unimpressive list of "sweeping changes" to the board, such as reducing the size of the board from 32 to 30 members, removing the Governor and President as voting members, and establishment of new committees (that could be likened to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic).

The administration also made the case that the Senators were unfairly singling out Penn State for reform, but not making similar reforms at Lincoln University, Pittsburgh, and Temple.  That would be a fair argument -- if those school's Boards had inflicted the same kind the damage on their Universities.  But they didn't.

The list of "accomplishments" provided by DiRaimo was very hard to read with a straight face, as most were insignificant changes to rules that wouldn't affect how the Board currently operates.

However, where the letter really went off the rails was its inclusion of a link to an op-ed written by the Collegian that DiRaimo characterized as the students taking a position against reform because "it deflects attention away from the things that matter most to their education."

I have posted that op-ed below.  It was nothing more than an attack on Penn State football fans, the alumni group, PS4RS, and the Senators, with no serious discussion of the issues affecting students.
























DiRaimo's decision to include that op-ed reflects highly questionable judgment on his part.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Where is President Barron?

I found it curious that the letter to the Senate Committee was signed by Michael DiRaimo, but it was not co-signed by President Barron and/or the Chair of the Board of Trustees.

Nor was there any specific mention that President Barron or the Board Chair had endorsed DiRaimo's position . However, that does not rule out that someone on the BOT may have persuaded DiRaimo to write the letter without the knowledge of the rest of the Board.  Perhaps this is just another shining example of the BOT's lack of openness and transparency?

At the end of the day, DiRaimo's letter confirmed that the leadership void that occurred after the ouster of Graham Spanier has continued through the Erickson administration and that President Barron has not yet stepped up and taken charge at PSU.

President Barron's reaction to this letter will be an early indication of how (or IF) he will lead the University.






Thursday, June 12

Kathleen Kane and the Corbett Investigation: WHY PSU and NO TSM?

by Barry Bozeman 

This week's news suggests that Kathleen Kane's investigation of Tom Corbett's handling of the Sandusky Investigation will not end with anything like an indictment. In fact Penn Live is reporting: 

Sources say report finds no evidence Corbett delayed Sandusky investigation

A report commissioned by Attorney General Kathleen Kane found that no evidence indicates then-Attorney General Tom Corbett delayed the investigation into convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, but it questions the case's pacing. 
Attorney General Kathleen Kane rode into office, cresting the wave of that ire and promising to investigate Corbett for allegedly "slow-walking" the original investigation of Jerry Sandusky for sex crimes against children in order to make sure he was securely in the governor's mansion before the charges dropped. 
Now, Kane says she is ready to release the report of that investigation, and multiple sources — citing people who've read it in advance — are reporting that it exonerates Corbett.
Waiting until it is released publicly. BY JOEL MATHIS  |  JUNE 11, 2014
Gov. Tom Corbett has read AG Kathleen Kane’s report on his handling of the Sandusky case while he was the state’s top prosecutor, but won’t comment until it’s released publicly.
Sources say the report largely absolves Corbett of dragging his feet on the case, although it suggests prosecutors could have searched Sandusky’s home sooner in the investigative process.
No kidding - the accusation of one victim would have been quite enough to merit a search warrant.  And if all this is true it is very disappointing because is appears that the report does not address the most baffling thing about Corbett's investigation. 

The failure to investigate The Second Mile. 

SMSS has long wondered along with others why Doctor Jack Raykovitz - the professional child psychologist who worked closely with Jerry Sandusky - was not charged with "failure to report". It was Raykovitz who was informed by Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley that an assistant football coach (Mike McQueary) was made to feel uncomfortable when he saw Sandusky taking a shower with a boy after 9pm in February of 2001. Sandusky was an employee of The Second Mile, not Penn State; and the children who Sandusky was eventually charged with molesting were Second Mile boys. A Doctor of Child Psychology should have a much better handle on grooming behavior and how to evaluate a child in possible trouble than an Athletic Director or Penn State's VP for Business.  

The Second Mile was responsible for those boys and for Sandusky, since he was paid by the charity. Raykovitz was the professional who would have been trained to recognize grooming behavior. When Kane first announced her investigation The Second Mile was on her mind at least because of the campaign contributions from TSM to Corbett:

Investigation to Focus on Governor’s Handling of Penn State Abuse Case

Ms. Kane, 46, is a former county prosecutor who specialized in child sex abuse cases. She questioned why it took 33 months to arrest Mr. Sandusky in late 2011 after Mr. Corbett, as attorney general, received a complaint against Mr. Sandusky in the spring of 2009.“It’s never taken me that long” to build a case against a molester, Ms. Kane said in the Harrisburg office she had just moved into, a Carpe Diem paperweight on her desk, adding that speed matters because child abusers seek new victims. “I was on the campaign trail almost two years; I didn’t go a single place without somebody asking me why it took so long.” 
She also questioned the influence of campaign donations Mr. Corbett received from a charity Mr. Sandusky founded, the Second Mile, whose board members contributed to Mr. Corbett’s run for governor. Investigators at the time suspected Mr. Sandusky of using the foundation, which helped troubled youth, to find victims. Mr. Corbett’s spokesman said he could not have returned the Second Mile contributions because at the time the case was before the grand jury and he was sworn to secrecy. 
Ms. Kane also questioned whether Mr. Corbett devoted enough staff to the investigation and whether agents were trained to pursue child abusers.
We have not yet seen the actual Kane report, but if sources are correct and the report does not fault Corbett for failure to look into TSM it will be a major disappointment.  

It is difficult to understand how Dr. Jack Raykovitz escaped this situation unscathed while Penn State has been so thoroughly damaged. Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz had duties that did not include responsibility for The Second Mile charity beneficiaries. It appears that no good deed went unpunished since they thought they were benefiting the charity by providing facilities for certain events, and believed they were doing the right thing when they informed The Second Mile director of McQueary's unease when he observed Sandusky with a boy at the Lasch facility. It seems quite reasonable for them to believe Raykovitz would be the best person to handle the problem since he would know if the boy was under Sandusky's care. Raykovitz was in the obvious position to evaluate Sandusky's behavior and to know how to find out if the boy needed psychological help. 

But the child psychologist who was a mandated reporter was never seriously confronted or charged concerning his behavior toward Sandusky or his responsibility to protect the children. . The Freeh "investigation" never touched The Second Mile. A football coach was fired and disgraced and the President, Athletic Director, and Vice-President of a major University with no training in the field were indicted. Now it appears that the role of Raykovitz and The Second Mile will never be explored.  

At the heart of Kane v. Corbett, prosecutorial discretion -- a former AG weighs in 

McQueary, Cohen noted, is a 6-foot-4, 240 pound, former Division 1 quarterback who was serving as a graduate assistant to Joe Paterno's football team who testified that he witnessed Sandusky assaulting a young boy in the Penn State showers.
"He comes upon the scene in the locker room with Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy, and what does he do? He walks out, goes home and asks his father what he should do. He doesn't go grab Sandusky off this kid. Why? His defense has been that Sandusky was an icon. He was a legend," Cohen said. 
"Even McQueary, who could have torn Sandusky limb for limb, walks out to avoid dealing with Sandusky because he's an icon."
Cohen said, "Tom Corbett has said something similar. He said you can't take one 10-year-old kid and try to put an icon in prison for life. You need to build a case."
Tom Corbett said he couldn't build a case on an icon based on one crime. Does that mean any icon can get away with one in Tom Corbett's OAG? Odd reasoning I think. But one icon named Joe Paterno saw his reputation destroyed without any crime or case. That pretty much proves Cohen and Corbett wrong. Penn State is also an icon and Corbett & Kelly managed to do great damage to Penn State's reputation by charging three iconic Penn State leaders on the flimsy ever changing statements of Mike McQueary. 

Once again we see the record distorted on what McQueary says he saw and what he said to the people he told. There is no logical reason Tim Curley would not have told Jack Raykovitz what he understood from McQueary's account. Corbett got away with making this case about Penn State instead of his campaign contributors at The Second Mile. 

The night Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky in the showers with "victim 2" he told his father and Dr. Dranov about the incident. Dr. Dranov claims Mike would only mention the 3 slaps he heard when asked if he had witnessed an assault. Mike eventually told some version of the event to 5 people - and one (Tim Curley) informed jack Raykovitz. But Corbett & Kelly's grand juries chose to write a Presentment that claimed Mike told Tim Curley and Gary Schultz he had witnessed a rape. The Sandusky trial jury didn't believe that. Tim and Gary don't believe that. And Dr Dranov says Mike only referred to 3 slap sounds when asked what he saw. 

In terms of culpability for failure to report the list should be ranked like this:

1) Mike McQueary - The man the Kelly/Corbett Presentment claims saw a rape 
2) Mike's father - the man best able to evaluate the veracity of Mike's rape claim  
3) Dr. Dranov -medical professional & close friend who heard the claim that night. 
4) Dr Raykovitz - Director of TSM responsible for the kids and Sandusky's boss who is also a professional child psychologist. 

If those 4 individuals are not culpable for failure to report how can Graham, Tim, and Gary be culpable? They did not know Mike and had no way to measure his veracity or read into his words or demeanor anything more than his evidently muddled story of 3 slaps and 2 second glances in a 10 min meeting 10 days following the incident. 

So why were Tom Corbett & Linda Kelly so bent on implicating Penn State and leaving The Second Mile out of it?  Raykovitz knew everything that Joe, Tim and Gary knew; and he was the professional who paid Sandsky's salary and worked with those kids. I don't get it.  

Why isn't anyone in the media interested in these questions? 

There is something very wrong about that, and the question still exists:

What did those campaign contributions from The Second Mile do to influence Corbett not to pursue Raykovitz and The Second Mile? 

Sunday, June 8

EILEEN MORGAN: Sandusky is Guilty: From his own mouth

Printable version at:   http://march4truth.com/research--reports.html
By
Eileen Morgan

There is no doubt that the Jerry Sandusky scandal has wreaked havoc in the State College community known as Happy Valley. 

To begin with, the young men who had already been molested at the hands of Sandusky would now have to revisit and share their nightmares all over again in the public arena. 

Secondly, a beloved and iconic coach, who spent his life transforming teenagers into young men by instilling in them the wisdom of ‘success with honor,’ was fired by the very University he helped build for 61 years.  Yes, Joe Paterno deserved better. 

Had Penn State University exercised due diligence from the outset and governed with prudent fiduciary practice, I believe Joe Paterno’s legacy would have remained intact and there would be no NCAA sanctions.

The Penn State Board of Trustees, you may now take a bow for a job well done.  Our hats off to you for successfully turning the Sandusky scandal into the Penn State scandal, costing our school, not only hundreds of millions of dollars, but her honor, as well.

And here, in the midst of this havoc, are thousands of alumni, friends, and supporters, trying to make sense out of one man’s depravity and one Board’s absurdity.

INNOCENT OR GUILTY?



Although we know more facts with each passing day, there is still debate at every juncture. 

One juncture, believe it or not, centers around Sandusky himself.  At the core of the debate is whether or not Sandusky received a fair trial.  From there, the debate branches off to Sandusky’s level of actual guilt or innocence.

There are strong arguments that suggest Sandusky received less than a fair trial.  I would have to agree. The timeline itself, from start to finish, raises eyebrows.  It took less than 8 months from his arrest, to try and convict him on 45 of 48 counts.  That certainly gives new meaning to the phrase ‘speedy trial.’   

However, does an accelerated trial necessarily mean he was not guilty?  Absolutely not.  Would a new trial overturn some of the previous 45 convictions? Perhaps.  But, I believe, based on Sandusky’s own words and admitted behavior, even without victims’ testimonies, he is guilty of grooming and molesting young boys.

 


UNDERSTANDING CHILD MOLESTERS


Let’s first look at the characteristics and behavior of a child molester.  Of the many different types of molesters, Sandusky has been identified as a ‘preferential child molester’ or ‘preferential sex offender.’

The following information comes from several sources1 including Jim Clemente, a former FBI profiler and expert in sex offender behavior, and Kenneth Lanning, M.S., a retired FBI special agent and expert on child sex crimes.  Once you learn the characteristics and behavioral patterns of a preferential sex offender and compare them with Sandusky’s known characteristics and admitted behavior as told in his own words, there will be little doubt that Sandusky molested children.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A PREFERENTIAL SEX OFFENDER  


First, a preferential sex offender has a definitive sexual preference for children.  He is sexually attracted to children and prefers to be with them.  Because he desires to be with children, the offender will gravitate to employment, activities and/or relationships which provide access or proximity to children.   He may seek out being a teacher, camp counselor, school bus driver, coach, or volunteer, where he can eventually specialize in working directly with children. The offender, with or without a spouse, may adopt children or become a foster parent.  This access gives the offender the potential to molest vast numbers of children, which are usually age and gender specific, based on his preference.

The preferential sex offender might be a prominent citizen, a pillar of the community. The reality is that in most child sexual abuse cases, the offender is someone who is known and trusted not only by the victim but also by the victim's family.  Many offenders are described as “pied pipers” who attract children.  This ability often helps them become exceptionally good teachers, coaches, or youth volunteers. His adult status and authority gain him the automatic trust and respect of children, their families, and the community.  The offender may be married, have a family, have a successful business or career, and be active in his religious institution, yet he has secret desires that he struggles with. 

Each child molester has a particular way to meet these desires and justify his or her behavior. Molesters use distorted thinking to rationalize and justify their crimes, to make their own needs most important and to minimize their behavior. Many offenders convince themselves that the relationship they have with their victim is different and special; that it is a mutual, loving, caring relationship; that the sexual acts are consensual; or that the child somehow benefits from the relationship. The offender “loves” the children and doesn’t want to harm them; he courts them and lures them with gifts, activities, and individual attention as a seduction ploy and slowly becomes intimate with the child. The offender is keenly aware of the wants and needs of children and is masterful at exploiting those needs.

The offender is often considered immature, uncomfortable around adults, and is childlike himself in his lifestyle and behaviors. Child sex offenders usually have the ability to identify with children better than they do with adults and especially know how to talk to children and are very good listeners – traits that makes most offenders master seducers of children.

PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR

The preferential child molester exhibits distinct patterns of behavior that are common among his kind. He first targets specific children that match his preference.  He then spends time grooming and seducing the children by engaging in activities that build trust while lowering their inhibitions.  Finally, and often before they realize what is happening, he engages in sexual activity with the children.


TARGETING VICTIMS

The preferential sex offender often targets needy or neglected children and those from dysfunctional homes. A favorite target victim is a child living with a single mother. The offender will sometimes express a desire to be a father figure or mentor for her child. The offenders often "seduce" the victim's parents, gaining their trust and confidence, so that they will allow him free access to their children. In fact, he may be molesting several victims at the same time.

Preferential child molesters may have access to school, medical, mental-health, or court records. These records could be valuable in determining a child's interests or vulnerabilities.
Almost any child can be seduced, but the most vulnerable children tend to be those who come from dysfunctional homes or are victims of emotional or physical abuse/neglect.


GROOMING and SEDUCTION

Once the offender has targeted a child, he begins the process of grooming or seducing the child.  This process occurs over a period of time and gradually lowers resistance, as well as, the child’s sexual inhibitions.

Jim Clemente states:
“Grooming is a pattern of activity employed by preferential child sex offenders to gain access, authority, and control over children for sexual purposes, to ensure their silence, and to keep them in a position in which they can be repeatedly victimized. The results of effective grooming are both far-reaching and long-term. They include: continued access to the child, initial cooperation of the child, isolation of the child, feelings of love, loyalty, and a debt of gratitude on the part of the child towards the offender. Then, when the sexual activity occurs, the child can experience intense feelings of shame, embarrassment, guilt, and confusion. One of the nefarious consequences of effective grooming is that the offenders’ motives are seen as altruistic, loving, and kind. He is seen to be sacrificing his time for the benefit of the children he helps. He is seen to be a person who would “never hurt a child.” In fact, in most cases of “nice-guy” offenders, the perpetrator actually loves children, enjoys their company, and has convinced himself that the sexual interactions he has with the children he feels close to are merely expression of love and not harmful to the child. This is an example of rationalization and minimization that help a child sex offender grant himself permission to commit the offenses.


The offender will seduce children by buying gifts and appealing to their emotional weakness by making them feel ‘special.’ This requires the offender to develop a close friendship with the child or utilize an existing relationship with the victim.
The offender often relies on threats to silence the victim.  Typically, the victim remains silent about the abuse because they are ashamed or embarrassed.  Sometimes the victims even feel ‘special’ to the offender and accept the abuse because of the attention, gifts, and benefits of the ‘relationship.’ Gifts and financial incentives are important, especially for kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, but attention and affection are the key factors.

Kenneth Lanning says:
“The typical adolescent, especially a boy, is easily sexually aroused, sexually curious, sexually inexperienced, and somewhat rebellious. All these traits combine to make the adolescent boy the easiest victim of this seduction. It takes almost nothing to get an adolescent boy sexually aroused. An adolescent boy with emotional and sexual needs is simply no match for an experienced 50-year-old man with an organized plan. Yet adult offenders who seduce them, and the society that judges them, continue to claim that these victims "consented." The result is a victim who feels responsible for what happened and embarrassed about his actions.
The next step in the seduction process is the lowering of inhibitions. 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 that 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. 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.
By the time the victims realize what is going on, they are in the middle of it and ashamed of their complicity. They did not "say no, yell, and tell." Most preferential child molesters usually work toward a situation in which the child has to change clothing, spend the night, or both. If the child molester achieves either of these two objectives, the success of the seduction is almost assured. The objective of changing clothes can be accomplished by such ploys as squirting with the garden hose, turning up the heat in the house, exercising, taking a bath or shower, physical examination of the child, or swimming in a pool. Spending the night with the child is the best way for the sexual activity to progress.

These are desire driven behaviors to which the offender is willing to devote considerable time, money, and energy in spite of the risks and contrary to self-interests.  In fact, a molester will frequently persist in the criminal conduct even when they have reason to believe the conduct has come to the attention of law enforcement.

JERRY SANDUSKY


Sandusky was a revered defensive coordinator for Penn State who served as an assistant coach for 30 years (1969-1999) and helped the PSU football team earn the nickname ‘Linebacker U.’ His coaching achievements include being named Assistant Coach of the Year in 1986 and 1999.

In 1977, during his coaching tenure, he founded The Second Mile, a non-profit charity serving Pennsylvania underprivileged and at-risk youth.  For his incredible work at The Second Mile, Sandusky received many honors and awards such as “Thousand Points of Light” By President George H.W. Bush and “Angels in Adoption” by U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.
Sandusky was loved by the entire community, from young children to Penn State students and alumni to the elderly.  If there was a picture perfect ‘pillar of the community,’ Sandusky was it.

MAY 1998 SHOWER INCIDENT


In May of 1998, a mother of a young boy became concerned when her son exhibited signs of possible sex abuse after he had showered with Jerry Sandusky at the Lasch building on PSU main campus.  She first reported her son’s behavior to his psychologist, who assured her she was not over-reacting.  Under the advice of the psychologist, the mother reported it to the University Park police (UP) which collaborated with the State College police, Child and Youth Services (CYS), the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), and the District Attorney to investigate the incident.  The investigation revealed Sandusky had also showered twice with another boy in the neighborhood.

These are the facts acknowledged by Sandusky himself according to the 1998 police report of that incident. (http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf)

Sandusky was not charged for this 1998 incident.  The boy in this incident, however, would later become known as victim #6 during the 2008-2011 Sandusky investigation that eventually led to Sandusky being convicted on 45 of 48 counts.

In 1998, Sandusky disclosed and admitted the following:

-         - Sandusky met this boy (Victim 6) around April 1, 1998 at a Second Mile event, just 1 month prior to this investigation.
-          -Sandusky admitted taking Victim 6 (and other boys), one on one, to work out and ‘wrestle.’
-          -Sandusky admitted he would try to ‘pin’ them and have them try to ‘pin’ him. 
-         - Sandusky told Victim 6 he ‘loved him’ that night (after only knowing him for a month).
-          -Sandusky said he would have brief workouts on the weights or play some basketball or ‘polish soccer’ and work up a light sweat.
-         - Sandusky admitted to showering with Victim 6 and other young boys, one on one, many times in the evening, alone after these ‘workouts.’
-          -Sandusky admitted to bear hugging the boys while naked in the shower.
           - Sandusky admitted to the mother that his private parts may have touched the boy . (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/spanier-schultz-curley_presentment-11-1-12.pdf)
-          When the mother of Victim 6 confronted Sandusky about the night he took her son to work out she told Sandusky her son was acting differently and asked Sandusky: ‘Did anything happen?’ Sandusky said, ‘We worked out.  Did (he) say something happened? Do you want me to talk to him?’ After the mother said she needed to think about whether letting her son spend time with him she again asked ‘Did something happen?’ Sandusky said ‘I don’t think so. Do you want me to talk to (him)? Should I let him alone?’ (Sandusky never disclosed showering with the boy until specifically asked. When confronted with these questions, Sandusky very subtly deflects what HE did and takes the focus off his behavior (minimizes behavior) and asks if the boy ‘said something’ and if he should ‘talk to the boy.’ As if the boy did something wrong or if the boy’s interpretation of his behavior was wrong.  Sandusky NEVER discussed what HE did and if HIS actions were wrong. He was deflecting any blame of his behavior and projecting it onto the boy.)
-          Sandusky could not promise the mother of Victim 6 he would not shower with boys anymore.
-          Sandusky admitted it was wrong to the police and said he ‘used poor judgment.’ He was distraught at the fact he did ‘anything that would upset the boy’ and understood ‘why the mother was concerned’ about them taking a shower together.

-          Sandusky was a little emotional and concerned as to how this might have adversely affected the child. (Exhibit 2D Freeh Report Tom Harmon’s email to G Schultz)

-          Police determined no crime had occurred but advised Sandusky not to shower with children anymore. Sandusky assured the police he would not shower with boys anymore.

Following this investigation there could now no longer be the excuse that “Jerry was just being Jer” or that he did not know better.  He admitted to using poor judgment and told the police it would not happen again. He now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong and has been put on notice: DO NOT SHOWER WITH YOUNG BOYS.

One would think an investigation by the local police, child welfare agencies, and District Attorney would have put the fear of God in Sandusky.  After all, he was an innocent man and an upstanding pillar of the community and his life and livelihood were on the line.  One would think that he would take extra precautionary measures around young boys at this point, especially since he interacts with them daily at The Second Mile. 

FEBRUARY 9, 2001 SHOWER INCIDENT


Apparently the police instruction and fear of God didn’t stick.

A few years later, on February 9, 2001, Mike McQueary walked into the Lasch locker room on a Friday evening and upon entering the locker room witnessed Sandusky in the shower with a young boy.  He became very upset with what he saw and reported what he thought was an inappropriate incident to his superiors- Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz.

-          Within 3 years Sandusky was caught showering with another boy in the Lasch building for the same behavior he had been instructed by police in 1998 not to do.

-          When confronted by Curley several days after the incident, Sandusky actually denied being in the shower with a boy on that night of 2-9-01.  However, a couple days later, Sandusky did admit to Curley that he and a boy showered that night in the Lasch building.  (http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/CurleySchultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf  pp185-186, 204)

-          Sandusky was told AGAIN by Curley that this was inappropriate behavior and not to shower with boys anymore. Sandusky said he wouldn’t.


2005-2008: SANDUSKY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH AARON FISHER 

On November 20, 2008, Aaron Fisher reported being sexually abused by Sandusky to the Clinton County Children & Youth Services (CYS).  Fisher became known as Victim 1 during the three year investigation which resulted in Sandusky being convicted on 45 of 48 counts. (http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061212_%20JT.pdf pp 124-185)

The following are facts acknowledged and disclosed by Sandusky according to a report by Jessica Dershem, the Clinton County Children & Youth caseworker who spoke with Sandusky in 2008 after Fisher contacted CYS to report the alleged abuse.

-          Sandusky said they had a 3 year relationship that began around the summer of ’05 when Fisher was 11 yrs old.
-          Sandusky thought of Fisher ‘like a son.’
-          Sandusky said he took interest in Fisher because Fisher’s father was not involved in his life and Sandusky wanted ‘to make Aaron feel important and significant.’
-          Sandusky says he was ‘wrapped up in Aaron Fisher.’
-          Sandusky admitted to taking Fisher and other boys out of class to spend time with them without parent’s permission.
-          Sandusky admitted to blowing raspberries on Fisher’s stomach.
-          Sandusky admitted to lying on top of Fisher to crack his back and pulling Fisher on top of him horizontally and vertically to crack his back usually around bed time while ‘wrestling around.’
-          Sandusky admitted that they would lie on each other for periods of 5-20 minutes.
-          Sandusky admitted to rubbing Fisher’s back underneath his shirt but couldn’t ‘honestly answer if his hands were below the boy’s pants.’
-          Sandusky admitted kissing Fisher and other boys on the forehead and maybe the cheek.
-          Sandusky said he would ask for hugs.
-          Sandusky would have Fisher sleep over at his house.
-          Sandusky took Fisher away to Eagle’s games, Big 33 game, and overnight football camps where they stayed in the same hotel room.
-          In ‘08 before Fisher reported the abuse, Sandusky said Fisher didn’t want to help him with The Second Mile anymore and Sandusky said he ‘felt used.’
-          Sandusky admitted taking Fisher out of an assembly and argued with Fisher about not spending time with him.
-          Sandusky denied ‘following Fisher’s bus home’ but said ‘he went in the direction that he thought the bus went.’  Once he ‘located’ Fisher walking he had him get in the car because he felt badly and wanted to ‘talk with him concerning the argument they had after Sandusky pulled him from the assembly.’ Sandusky said they argued, Fisher got angry and got out of car.  Sandusky then drove to Fisher’s home and spoke with his mother.
-          Sandusky gave Fisher a computer.
-          Sandusky admitted after Fisher started pulling away and after the argument he gave Fisher golf clubs and on his birthday, 11-9-08, he gave him a homemade birthday card, which was the last time Sandusky saw Fisher.  This happened 11 days before Fisher reported the alleged abuse.
-          Sandusky admitted doing similar things with other boys.
-          Records show Sandusky telephoned Fisher 61 times from his home phone and 57 times from his cell phone between January 2008 and July 2009.

There were other witnesses who observed Sandusky’s relationship with Fisher. During the time Sandusky was a volunteer football coach at Central Mountain High, Joseph Miller, a wrestling coach for an elementary school in Central Mountain (2000-2008) observed the following: (http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061212_%20JT.pdf pp 300-320)

-          In ‘06-‘07 Miller would often see Sandsuky and Fisher in the hallway together in the middle school.
-          Miller would see Sandusky waiting around for Fisher during and after school.
-          One night @8pm Miller had left the school but came back to get something.  The school and gym were dark, but he saw lights from the small weight room that had a rock climbing wall. He went to turn off the lights and saw Sandusky and Fisher in the back far corner on a small mat lying on their sides face to face.  When Sandusky heard Miller he quickly propped up on one arm and said ‘hey coach, Aaron and I are just working on some wrestling moves.’
-          Miller didn’t think much of it because he saw Sandusky and Fisher around and thought Sandusky was like a ‘father figure’ to Fisher.
-          On the way home he thought it was peculiar they would work on wrestling moves on a small mat in the small room when the big wrestling room was full of mats. He then thought ‘Jerry is a saint’ and thought no more about it.
-          Sandusky was described as being clingy and needy when boys would distance themselves.

 


LETTERS FROM JERRY SANDUSKY

The investigation also revealed letters written by Sandusky to a teenage boy, now known as Victim 4.  Sandusky had been involved in Victim 4’s life for about 4-5 years before Victim 4 began pulling away from him around 2002.  During this time that Victim 4 was trying to distance himself, Sandusky wrote him the following letters. (Not in any particular order.) (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_prosecuti_4.html)
Letter 1
(Victim 4):
I know that I have made my share of mistakes.
However I hope that I will be able to say that I cared. There has been love in my heart.
My wish is that you care and have love in your heart. Love never ends. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
I believe that it can overcome all things!
With love,
Jer
Letter 2 (In part)
(Victim 4):
Once again, I have decided to write some of my thoughts.
I write because you mean so much to us. I write because I am concerned about all of us. …….. I write because of the churning in my own stomach when you don’t care. I write because I still hope that there will be meaning to the time we have known each other.

Letter 3
(Victim 4):
Yes, I am a “Great Pretender.” I pretend that I can sing. I pretend about many things. However, I can’t pretend about my feelings and want you to always remember that I care.
Not always a pretender - “Jer”
Letter 4
The B-J Story:
Very few people know about this story and probably less care. I guess that I’m writing it for me. I’m Jer.
(Victim 4) is a young man that came into Jer’s life. It was a difficult time for Jer because he had lost his dad. Jer and his dad shared so much, did many things together. (Victim 4) comes along and he and Jer seem to enjoy the same experiences. Both seemed to be in need. They loved playing games, competing, singing, laughing, sharing experiences, just being themselves. Jer remembers driving (Victim 4) home. (Victim 4) would say, “Tell me another story, Jer.”
Jer, of course, being filled with them would come up with one. Jer remembers how he didn’t want those rides to end.
Jer became attached to (Victim 4) and always will be. (Victim 4) loved Justice and Staush, and they love him. He and Jer played Polish soccer, wrote papers together, rode (Victim 4)'s four wheeler even though Jer was scared to death, studied in the playground, roller skated, ice skated, jet skiied, went to a bowl game, spent days at football and soccer camp, canoed, traveled and more. He met and did things with Penn State football players and spent many hours with them and Jer.
It wasn’t (Victim 4), Jer, LaVar, Mac, Courtney, David, Anthony, Josh, etc., it was “we.”
Times were not always perfect. There were ups and downs. There were arguments, fights, they cared! No matter what, there was a connection that would help them last through their difficult times. There was always a sensitive, caring feeling deep inside. Jer had learned through many experiences that life isn’t perfect, even with someone he considered to be his “best friend.”
Life is far from perfect at this stage. Something or things have come into (Victim 4)’s life that appear to have taken him over. It’s powerful, a cloud of smoke that has engulfed him, for Jer it has been a dark cloud. (Victim 4) seemed to fight it, coming over trying to do hockey, but couldn’t pull it off. He seemed to be losing these battles more and more.
Inch by inch the cloud has chocked him and taken over. It has smothered sensitivity and love, taken away his caring and enthusiasm. His enthusiasm has been replaced by sleep, his caring replaced by apathy (no concern). “Tell me another story, Jer, “ has been replaced by “I don’t care.” This cloud has destroyed soccer and hockey, choked smiles and laughter. There is fear that it has reached his insides, killing his feelings.
Jer believes that there will always be something special inside (Victim 4).
He hopes that it will last, return, if it has left. The players miss him.
They say, “come back, (Victim 4)!” “Stay with us, (Victim 4)!” Jer would love to have the good times back. The players shout, “be with us to the end!”
Jer would love to hear “Tell me another story, Jer.” Jer may not be worthy, but he needs a “best friend.” It doesn’t look real good.
Jer understands life and its changes. He’s proud, too proud to beg for a friend, extended family member. The story will end the way (Victim 4) wants it. Jer wants to be there to the end, but that’s (Victim 4)’s call. If (Victim 4) ever needs him, he’ll come.
Regardless, they have had an experience that others won’t. Jer will not forget and always care!

The investigation also uncovered a contract Sandusky made with Victim 4 that in essence would force Victim 4 to spend more time with him in exchange for money.
Jerry hides behind the shroud of fatherly love in public with these boys, conveying to others that they are ‘like sons.’  But in private, as written and spoken by Jerry himself, he never relates his ‘love’ as fatherly love for a son, it’s always more intimate, like a ‘best friend’ or ‘special’ type of love which is never appropriate between a 50 + year old man and a young boy.  And, much of the writing in the letters seems to be coming from a broken heart that is saddened over a special ‘loved one’ walking away.


PREFERENTIAL SEX OFFENDER & SANDUSKY COMPARISON

Now let’s compare the characteristics and behavior of a preferential sex offender with the known characteristics and behavior of Sandusky. Of course, just because a man or woman shares these characteristics, works closely with children, and is highly revered in the community does not necessarily mean they have nefarious motives.  But, looking at this comparison, in conjunction with Sandusky’s own words and admitted behavior with 11-15 year old boys, leaves little doubt this ‘saint’ fooled an entire community for decades.
The following shows the overlapping characteristics and behavior of a preferential sex offender and that of Sandusky:
-          Pillar of the Community.
-          Successful and popular assistant Penn State football coach.
-          Was an adoptive parent of six children and foster parent to many.
-          Active in his Methodist church.
-          Was well-known and trusted by everyone in the community.
-          Founded The Second Mile (TSM) charity that gave him unfettered access to underprivileged and at-risk youth.
-          Many of these youth were needy or neglected children from dysfunctional homes where the child was often raised by a single mother and had no father figure.
-          Worked directly with these youth as a volunteer and coach.
-          Wanted to be a ‘Father Figure’ to the boys because their father was absent.
-          Sandusky thought of the boys ‘like a son.’ (This is common terminology used by Jerry to appear to be in a proper relationship, viewed as ‘family’ by others which lowered scrutiny and eliminated suspicion by others of an improper relationship.)
-          Wanted to make boys ‘feel important and significant.’
-          Had access to boys’ private information/records at TSM.
-          Had ‘special’ and ‘loving, caring’ relationships with boys.
-          Spent endless hours with boys giving them special attention.
-          Pampered the boys with gifts.
-          Made boys feel special with activities, such as letting the boys meet the PSU players, taking them to PSU football games (allowing them on the sidelines), Bowl games and NFL games, having BBQs and sleep overs at his home.
-          Admitted he took boys on overnight outings and slept in the same hotel room.
-          Was known as a ‘Big Kid’ and was always goofing and ‘horsing’ around with boys and often interacted with children more than adults.
-          Was uncomfortable interacting with adults.
-          Spent time with boys without parent’s permission.
-          Said he ‘loves’ the boys and was ‘wrapped up’ with them and enjoys spending time with them (spent hours just driving to and from their homes, sometimes 30-40 miles away, picking them up and dropping them off.)
-          During the 1998 probe, Sandusky said he would ‘never hurt a child’ and was concerned with the welfare of the child.
-          Admitted to rubbing boys’ legs.
-          Admitted to kissing boys on the head and cheek.
-          Admitted to hugging boys and asking boys for hugs.
-          Admitted to getting the boys to change clothes before an activity.
-          Admitted to wrestling with boys, one on one, trying to pin them and have them pin him. (Introducing physical touch, exploring what he can get away with.)
-          Admitted to ‘working out’ with boys, one on one.
-          Admitted to showering with boys, one on one, after ‘working out.’
-          Admitted to bear hugging boys naked in the shower.
-          Admitted his privates may have touched the boys during the naked bear hugging.
-          Admitted to lying on top of boys and having boys lie on top of him to ‘crack’ each other’s backs.
-          Admitted to caressing a boy’s back and was not sure if his hands ‘went below the boy’s pants.’
-          Admitted to having boys sleep over and ‘tucking’ them in and blowing raspberries on their stomach before bed.
-          Admitted he argued with a boy when the boy started pulling away.
-          Admitted he ‘felt used’ when the boy no longer wanted to spend time with him.
-          Followed the boy home on a school bus because he was upset they argued and wanted to talk with the boy.
-          Created a contract with a boy who started to pull away in order to spend more time with him in exchange for money.
-          Wrote letters expressing his ‘love and concern’ to a boy when the boy started pulling away. 

If there is any doubt whether you believe Sandusky was a preferential sex offender, reread the above comparison and in place of ‘boys’ imagine he did these things with ‘11 year old girls.’


Any doubt now?




Eileen Morgan
June 8, 2014
 http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
 (Kenneth Lanning-Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis)

 http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/2.html ]