Thursday, January 1

Steven Fink: The Penn State Crisis Annual Review, 2014


By Steven Fink

I was asked to write a brief review of milestone events in 2014, as I saw them, in the still going strong Penn State/Jerry Sandusky crisis. But first, let’s define our terms: A 17-person majority of the board of trustees would have you believe the crisis is over and it’s time to “move on.” Those individuals are naive and they are wrong. Worse, they are wrong at the top of their lungs. Moreover, they are the ones perpetuating the ongoing crisis, rather than doing anything proactively to resolve it.

Let me be clear: in the mid-80s – nearly three decades ago – I wrote Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable, the first book ever written on crisis management. It remains to this day the most widely read book on the subject. In it, I outlined the four separate and distinct phases of what I termed the Anatomy of a Crisis. Uninformed folks might have you believe that the school’s “crisis” began in November 2011, with the grand jury presentment, and ended soon thereafter. Far from it.  That was merely the Acute Phase of the crisis – the phase when chaos and turmoil reign supreme.  When that second phase ended, the University entered the third phase: the Chronic Phase. In this – generally the longest of the four stages – we encounter court actions (e.g., the Sandusky trial) newspaper exposes, investigations (e.g., the Freeh Report, the Thornburgh Report), mea culpas (e.g., board member Al Clemens public apology for his role in the rush to judgment), firings, promotions, course corrections, etc. This is where we remain mired today. Why? Generally because of the 17 recalcitrant BOT members who refuse to open the door and let the truth come out.

Looking back through 2014, I was surprised to see that I had written ten blog posts on this crisis and the NCAA’s overreaching power plays. (You can read them all at TheCrisisBlog.tumblr.com). The one that generated the biggest response was titled “17 Feathers for Penn State Board.” It was a reference to an old book by British author A.E.W. Mason, having to do with publicly naming a person a coward by presenting that individual with a white feather of shame. When the nine alumni-elected members of the board introduced a resolution to reopen the Freeh Report and who-knows-how-many-“sealed-documents” to finally get to the truth – the real truth – the 17 nay-sayers defeated the motion unanimously. For that I publicly labeled them all as cowards, and suggested they each receive white feathers.

Then, more recently, at what was supposed to be a specially called BOT meeting to discuss reopening the Freeh Report and getting a much-needed look at Freeh’s so-called “secret documents,” the 17 head-in-the-sand members, acting in unison as a group, boycotted the meeting entirely. What are they, children? What are they afraid of? The truth? Lemme break it down for you: when one person boycotts an event, you could make  a reasonable argument that it was done because of a strong philosophical difference of opinion. But when the entire group of 17 intransigent trustees fails to appear, it is clear they are lemmings that have lost their ability for independent thought and reason. Someone is calling the shots and these 17 white feather candidates are mindlessly jerking along on puppet strings.

 In my career, I have served on a number of boards, advised boards immersed in various crises, and currently chair the board of a private,non-profit charitable foundation. When a subject is presented with which I disagree, the last place I want to be is absent. No, I want to be there to express my opinions and maybe persuade some on the other side of the issue over to my side. To intentionally boycott a meeting because you’re afraid of the outcome of a vote is petulant and juvenile.

Consider: during this year, Judge Freeh tried to throw up as many legal road blocks as he could to keep his work secret, even in the face of evidence that he was in regular communication with the NCAA all during his investigation. How does this qualify as an “independent” report? Do I hear a growing chorus of “collusion”? But the board remained mute and did not support the actions to reopen the report and objectively examine its findings. If you’re trying to get to the bottom of a report that has been widely labeled as “fact-challenged” and “error-filled,” wouldn’t you want to see all the evidence to learn the truth?

Consider: during this year, the NCAA tried to throw up as many legal road blocks as it could to keep their documents private, even after it was revealed in a series of leaked emails that the NCAA bluffed a woefully na├»ve Penn State board into accepting the most draconian sanctions ever handed down by the sports authority, while suspecting all along that it did not have the jurisdiction to do so. In my most recent book, Crisis Communications, I argued that the events at Penn State were a criminal matter, not an NCAA infraction. If you’re trying to get to the bottom of the matter, wouldn’t you want to see all the evidence and maybe have those sanctions officially repealed and the millions of dollars in monetary fines returned? When the board took steps to block such actions, it put itself in the unimaginable position of opposing legal action that, if successful, would stand to benefit the university in a myriad of ways.

Feel free to disagree with me, but my experience tells me that the only reason most of the sanctions have been lifted early is because the NCAA wants this court case to vanish. In their presentation to the court, they actually argued that the suit was now moot because most of the sanctions have been lifted. That obvious ploy was spotted and quickly shot down by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Ann Covey. Judge Covey now wants to see if the sanctions were even legal in the first place. (Good for her!)  And this challenge to the NCAA’s once impregnable authority is the very last thing the NCAA wants.

In court, the board (on behalf of the university) joined the NCAA. This mind-numbing action defies credulity, and there are only a limited number of plausible explanations why: Either the 17 board members are cowards (as I labeled them previously), they are in cahoots with the NCAA because they are afraid to rock the boat for fear of future actions, or they are just plain obtuse. You can cast your own vote.

But, thankfully, Judge Covey seems hell bent on getting to the truth and she is standing rock solid on this mission.

The NCAA said it was lifting many – but not all – of the sanctions against Penn State because former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, our “monitor,” gave us a gold star on his last report on the university’s compliance. But such moves will still leave the stigma of wrong doing intact. If things go well for the truth seekers, the court case could force the NCAA to acknowledge it was wrong, it had no jurisdiction to impose the sanctions in the first place, and for that reason the sanctions must be removed.

In the midst of this turmoil, the board adopted a new and completely meaningless “brand” for the university: “Penn State Lives Here.” When asked about it at the time, I replied “Penn State doesn’t need a new Brand, it needs a new Board.”

New Year’s Prediction: When the dust settles, as it most likely will this year, it will be time for accounts to be settled, starting with the removal of the most obstreperous board members.

New Year’s Wish: That the board wakes up before it’s too late and gets on the right side of history.

New Year’s Question: Which side will President Eric Barron come down on? He’s in a tough spot, to be sure: He is obedient to the board (who hired and pays him), but he can’t remain blind and mute forever. He asked to review the Freeh Report, which was a good step, but what is he planning to do with it…and when? In trying to answer that pivotal question, it would behoove us to recall that before coming to Penn State he was president of Florida State University – a school that essentially swept under the carpet damning reports and credible evidence that star quarterback, and eventual Heisman Trophy winner Jameis Winston, sexually assaulted a coed at the school. So Barron has familiarity with schools taking paths of expediency rather than paths of righteousness. Which path will he walk?

To those who holler into the wind that the crisis is past and let’s move on, I say this: If the crisis had ended in 2012, why are so many people still talking about it and litigating it now? When this phase of the crisis is finally over, the school will enter the fourth and final phase of the crisis: the Resolution Phase.

But, alas, we are a long way from that right now.


Steven Fink
President and CEO
Lexicon Communications Corp.
theCrisisBlog.tumblr.com
twitter.com/LexiconCorp

36 comments:

  1. I agree with all that you have written but I still have a question that has bothered me and many past players. Who exactly is responcible for taking down the stature and why and who is responcible for returning the wins? The BoTs and the NCAA are conspirators in this problem and I for one can not wait for the walls to come tumbling down.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob,
    First, the statue.

    My friend, John Yonchuk, wrote this piece that points to the NCAA forcing PSU to remove the statue and links it to the decision to vacate the wins.

    http://no1lion99.blogspot.com/2014/11/who-decided-to-remove-paterno-statue.html

    I don't think too much arm twisting was needed by the NCAA to convince Erickson and the cabal of trustees to remove the statue -- and ultimately, they went even farther when they tore down the walls surrounding the statue, which included the records of Paterno teams prior to 1998.

    Erickson took responsibility for the removal of the statue in this statement -- however, Erickson was nothing more than a puppet for the cabal that ran the Board in 2011 until his retirement.

    http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/statement-by-penn-state-president-rodney-erickson-regarding-the-joe-paterno

    Erickson's explanation was interesting, given that it made no mention of the banner plane that made the terroristic threat to take down the statue. In a rational world, PSU would have demanded an investigation into who flew the plane. No such investigation occurred.

    While I have no affection for the NCAA, the damage that was done to PSU was inflicted by the cabal that ran the Board. The NCAA was just along for the ride. however, they are the ones who currently (but probably only temporarily) have authority to restore the wins.

    Once the courts rule the Consent Decree is invalid, the NCAA will be forced to restore the vacated wins. After which, Emmert and the NCAA will be forced to fight for their existence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Didn't the PSU Board hire crisis management experts? If so, did those experts get it so wrong or did the PSU Board simply ignore their advice?

    It seems like Spanier had the right approach when he publicly defended Curley and Schultz prior to his removal.

    VA Tech stood behind their President and police chief during the scandal of their 2007 campus massacre, and fired no one. Yet Penn State quickly threw their people under the bus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      The BOT retained the legal firm, Reed Smith to assist, but crisis mgmt was not among the services offered (according to Guadagnino's depostion). Quite frankly, the BOT wasn't looking for help with that -- they had the ultimate crisis mgr (Frazier) sitting on the Board.

      I agree that Spanier's statement was correct, especially in referring to the "allegations" being "troubling" and that the allegations against Curley and Schultz were "baselesss." That statement was far superior to the Board's emotionally charged that assumed guilt immediately.

      As I have studied the Duke case, I believe the Board used that as its playbook. KC Johnson's contention that the PSU Board performed in a superior manner to Duke's is absolute nonsense. Duke assumed its 3 students were guilty. PSU assumed its 3 administrators were guilty.

      Duke fired their lacrosse coach. PSU fired its football coach.

      The charges against Duke players were dismissed. 3 Years later there is still no trial date for PSU officials.

      The difference between the two cases is that the PSU BOT was told that Curley and Schultz would flip on Spanier and that there was no risk of the tampered evidence ever being discovered.

      Delete
  4. Sorry for not keeping completely up, but which tampered evidence are you referring to here? We've got "victim" tampering (#4?); "witness" tampering (McQueary, Paterno, & Spanier); and email tampering. Then we've got Cynthia Baldwin tampering with PSU trustees and administrators.

    (BTW, I'm really looking forward to her head and its claim of integrity rolling. Puppet or not, she betrayed so much by her role in all this.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becky,
      My reference was to the email tampering. I was doing more research on that last night and found characteristics that were present in the original emails, but not present in the tampered emails.

      Delete
    2. Convincing evidence of outside tampering with emails among PSU administrators should tamp down some of the naysaying. Particularly if it's with the small batch that is held up to be THE damning evidence of Joe Paterno's knowledge of concerns about Sandusky. Bless your perseverence, Ray!

      Delete
    3. Becky,
      Freeh's so called "critical email evidence" that he used to condemn PSU officials AND that prosecutor Bruce Beemer also waved as damning evidence at the preliminary hearing of Tim, Gary, and Graham did not contain the identifying script that indicated it was printed from a computer file. Other less important email that were "discovered" by Freeh has the scripts.

      Exhibit 5G "after talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable" is one of the emails without the scripts. Exhibit 2D is another.

      Delete
    4. So... lack of script indicates not printed from a computer file. And this indicates, at the least, an opportunity to change something that was in the email as it existed as a computer file. This change, then, would be accomplished by physically cutting and taping/ pasting together the desired pieces, then xeroxing a clean copy? Like we used to mock up artwork for an ad, for example??

      Wow. If this is how the Exhibit emails were produced... To think so much wrong could be done, in an academic community, in the 21st century, by such a primitive method... wow. I really hope I've got this email-tampering thing all wrong.

      Ray, thanks AGAIN for your patience and diligence. What an education you're providing!

      Best regards,
      Becky

      Delete
    5. Becky,
      You have it half right. Some of the email exhibits that were provided by the OAG were copies of documents (altered) and some were printed on the OAG's computer system (originals - from files).

      However, the alterations were made by accessing the computer files and changing the wording, then saving the files. According to the OAG forensics expert, the files from Schultz were provided to him on a DVD -- separately from the rest of the email files.

      Freeh's computers were not connected to the University system, which would have made it very easy for his team to alter the documents without it being traced. In addition, the Freeh team's computer clocks could be reset to any date, so that the files could be backdated. The OAG's expert said the DVD was dated 2005, but that isn't reliable because of the possible resetting of the clock.

      I talked about how this was done in my San Diego presentation around the 2:46 mark of this video.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDO6Qq0QOwM

      I also wrote about other signs of tampering that would be present from converting a Eudora file to an Outlook file. Check near the end of this post...

      http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/08/trial-transcripts-add-evidence-that.html

      Given that there were at least six dates that were provided for the when the emails were turned over -- and that the Moulton report showed that the PA State Police had them on July 7, 2011, far in advance of Freeh's "discovery" -- I believe that this evidence is going to be challenged if the C,S,S case ever gets to trial and/or in Spanier's defamation case against Freeh.

      Thanks for your support!
      Ray

      Delete
  5. Ray:

    After reading rdk I decided to look at McQueary's email published by ESPN in November 2011. He wrote, "I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police". Did it come out who the police was/is?

    Since the Grand Jury and OAG found McQueary extremely credible, that evidence could be a "Smoking Gun" in the conspiracy of silence evidence.

    I would assume that not only the OAG but Judge Freeh's exhaustive search would have sought out that "Police" report as Critical. McQueary would surely remember who or what department he reported it to and what report was or was not made and who made the decision to write or Not write a report.

    That email seems to have many potential explosive consequences depending on what was learned.

    Did I miss the investigative outcome of such a critical issue?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,
      Sorry for the delay in posting your comment.

      McQueary clarified his statement to mean that he talked to Schultz (only) and that he considered Schultz to be the police. McQueary did not talk to Harmon.

      As for Harmon, he is definitely a person of interest in the 2001 case. His testimony about not being told of the incident makes absolutely no sense. Of course, he had quite a few incentives to lie given that he was a mandated reporter and that he had tampered with the 1998 police report.

      The 1998 tampering doesn't get enough attention. Harmon had quite a record for arresting football players, so he didn't mislabel the report out of concern for bad publicity for the football program. It is highly probable he did it to protect his former neighbor and fellow church member, Jerry Sandusky.

      Delete
    2. This is not the first time you have mentioned the Church.

      Delete
    3. Regardless of what we each believe about Sandusky's actions with boys, many of us agree (with Dottie and Jerry) that the trial in which he was sentenced to essentially life in prison was not just. Lots of suggestions of prosecutorial misconduct and perhaps rush.

      SO... does Tom Harmon stand in support of Dottie, his neighbor and church family member, in working toward a new trial for J Sandusky? One that could at least provide some defensible evidence one way or another?

      Delete
    4. I have no idea where Harmon stands on the issue, however, I don't think he'd be helpful as a witness. He is a liability as a witness in the cases against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.

      I, for one, would love to give the defense attorneys a list of questions to ask Harmon if he ever takes the stand. Filings by the defense attorney requested emails pertaining to Harmon and any deals he may have cut to avoid failure to report charges in 2001.

      Delete
    5. Ray - Interesting comment about Harmon being "a liability as a witness" for the prosecution. I think it is to the point that almost all the major prosecution witnesses (McQueary, Baldwin) are in that category.

      Delete
    6. Tim,
      I agree....and I think that's why the case is never going to get to trial.

      Take care,
      Ray

      Delete
  6. Why the shredder truck to TSM, who ordered it, why, and what was the target(s) of destruction?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The document storage/destruction company, Automated Records Center, is owned by Michael Sullivan. Sullivan was on the Board of The Second Mile and was named its volunteer of the year, though I don't recall which year.

      I don't know who ordered the truck, however TSM's expense records from between 2000 and 2003 were missing -- according to various media reports.

      Delete
    2. In the immortal words of the grad assistant, "It's not rocket science"

      Delete
    3. Misder2,
      There are a few possibilities. I'm thinking we might want to start a pool.

      Delete
  7. Ray,

    I get the feeling from reading rdk's (Becky's) comments that she may believe, as I do, that Jerry Sandusky got a raw deal from the justice system. I have also heard John Ziegler say that he feels that you think Jerry may have been railroaded also but you just don't want to say it publicly. Whether these are your true feelings or not you have to agree being the intelligent and knowledgable man that you are that Jerry did not receive fair due process and the trial was rushed and a sham. There was very little time for discovery and most motions were denied. These injustices were a disservice to Joe Paterno, PSU alumni, the 3 administrators and most of all Jerry and his family as well as all descent people who believe in fairness and due process. Ray, why not focus on this part of the scandal more? If Jerry were to receive a new more fair trial with a real opportunity for discovery imagine the snowball effect it could have on all the issues you've worked so hard to bring to light. Remember if Jerry is innocent, which I feel very strongly that a lot of evidence points to him being so, then all the other accused are too and from there all the Kings men's stories begin to unravel. I hope you will consider these thoughts and I sincerely appreciate all the hard work you have done. Like Joe said Ray, just find the WHOLE TRUTH! Thanks so much for listening and God bless.

    Scott, "91"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott,
      Thanks for your comment.

      I don't WASTE my time on debating Jerry's innocence because he admitted to abusing at least two of the victims (1 and 6). He admitted to showering naked with other children (BK and others) and hugging them too. He admitted to being in bed with Aaron Fisher and letting Fisher lay on top of him for at least five minutes. Those are child abuse crimes.

      That said, a guilty man cannot be "railroaded."

      I have pointed out many problems with the trial, however, the problems had little effect on its outcome. While Jerry may have been found not guilty of a few more charges (with a better lawyer and a better judge), It appeared to me that the problems arose from the judge and attorneys having a priority to protect The Second Mile and blame Penn State as much as possible.

      As for evidence pointing to Jerry's innocence -- there was none presented at the trial. There were no alibi witnesses nor did anyone come forward who could refute any of the victim's testimony.

      The story is already unraveling, but Sandusky's guilt is not in question.

      Delete
    2. Ray - I agree that the Sandusky judge and prosecutors protected The Second Mile, and also CYS and DPW, who made far worse misjudgements on Sandusky than Penn State.

      I don't remember Sandusky ever admitting to abusing any victims. He still maintains his innocence. The Sandusky judge even seemed to recognize that Sandusky had not confessed when he instructed the jury that inappropriate behaviors like bear hugs and washing a boy in a shower were not criminal by themselves.

      The judge instructed the jury that “If he [Sandusky] did not act out of his own sexual desire then he committed no crime, even if he acted in poor judgement.”

      There was no proof of "sexual desire" for any of the three Penn State shower victims in 1998, 2000 and 2001. The jury apparently used the testimony of other victims to establish sexual desire in the Penn State shower cases because the prosecution and media sensationalized the Penn State cases far more than the others.

      I think the strongest indicator of guilt based on Sandusky's admissions was that he showered with a boy on the Penn State campus in 2001 after he promised the police in 1998 that he wouldn't do it again.

      Delete
    3. Ray,

      Thank you for considering my opinions and for your response. We may have to agree to disagree on the matter of Jerry's possible innocence among other things, but I respect your opinions and greatly appreciate all your hard work. I hope only for the full truth to come out as soon as possible and I agree with you on many more points than disagree with you and feel that you have done a fantastic job so far of investigating this sad fiasco. I still feel a trial on charges so horrific should never have come to the courts in such a short time and feel that proper discovery would bring out so much more knowledge of the case irregardless of Jerry's innocence or not. Even the best lawyers would be handcuffed with the scenario Jerry's lawyers were handed. Innocent or guilty fair due process still should matter. Interesting how the 3 administrators still wait 3+ years for the start of there trials. In my opinion Jerry was convicted mostly on hearsay and he said she said but again I have great respect for your opinion and I will agree to disagree on that subject. Thanks Ray, again I appreciate all the hard work and I am on your side. Please don't give up the good fight and thanks again for your time. Take care and God bless.

      Scott "91"

      Delete
    4. Tim,
      The trial testimony of Jessica Dershem included the reading of Sandusky's statement about his contact with Aaron Fisher. Sandusky admitted to being in bed with Fisher, pulling Fisher on top of him, and holding him there for 5 minutes. He also equivocated on whether or not he had put his hands below Fisher's waist.

      While Jerry has maintained his innocence, it's interesting that his prison interview starts out with this:

      Jerry: "Let me ask you this. The main issue I have is anything that I say, there’s two issues. One would be incrimination. I don’t want to incriminate myself."

      So if he's innocent, as he claims, why would he be worried about incriminating himself?

      Thanks for the refresh on Cleland's instruction. His instructions also stated that if the jury believed there was current OR FUTURE intent then they could establish guilt. See the 6-22-2012 transcript.

      I agree with you that his repeat of showering in 2001 after being told not to do it in 1998 establishes sexual intent. I don't know if the jury went with that, but you are likely correct that the jury used other victim's testimony to establish intent. So they were within the judges instruction.

      Delete
    5. Tim Berton,

      I enjoyed and agree with your reply. Also remember that the 2001 "boy" in the shower was nearly 14 years old and looked at Jerry as a father figure. He also told investigators and Jerry's lawyer that nothing criminal or anything out of line ever happened in the shower that evening or at any other time. Unfortunately he got in line for a check from PSU when offered the opportunity by the same lawyer (Andrew Shubin) who got many others checks also. This whole disgraceful episode is a mini version of what's become of our whole society these days. There is no truth or justice anymore just lies and greed. Thanks for expressing your truthful opinions. Take care and God bless.

      Scott "91"

      Delete
    6. Scott,
      Thanks again for your comment and the kind words.

      While I agree that the trial had to set some sort of record for speediness, some of the errors made by Sandusky's lawyers were not caused by a lack of preparedness. There were many obvious follow up questions that Joe Amendola avoided.

      When I said the judge and attorneys involved were protecting The Second Mile, the inference was that Amendola was on the same page as the judge and prosecution. That said, Amendola's performance wasn't nearly bad enough for a court to rule that Sandusky had ineffective assistance of counsel.

      Finally, in nearly all of the cases of serial child sexual abuse involving pillar of the community offenders, like Sandusky, the cases are made by multiple victims testifying to incidents in a corroborating fashion. Physical evidence of contact is rare in these cases.

      Those who point to a lack of physical evidence of Sandusky having sex with boys, I challenge them to provide any physical evidence that Sandusky ever had sex with a woman. Think about that for a moment.

      Thanks for your support!

      Delete
    7. Ray,

      Really?

      Jerry: "Let me ask you this. The main issue I have is anything that I say, there’s two issues. One would be incrimination. I don’t want to incriminate myself."

      Who would want to say something that may be taken out of context and possibly jeopardize any hope for an appeal. You listened to those interviews and that's what you got out of them? I feel as though your mixing opinion with fact in this instance. And as far as Aaron Fisher goes you may want to consider that fact that his step father was arrested on 109 counts of child abuse in Georgia and Pennsylvania and that Mr. Fisher and his mother have a bit of a sketchy record themselves. Also the testimony about Sandusky and Fisher in bed seems to jump to conclusion more than it states any real facts of child abuse. I'm sorry Ray but I disagree with you on these matters. As always thou, I do respect and appreciate your opinions. Thanks for the forum.

      Scott "91"

      Delete
    8. Scott,
      The prison interview avoided any questions about the victims from the trial, so why would Jerry be concerned about potential impact on appeal.

      Aaron Fisher's stepfather and HIS GIRLFRIEND were BOTH charged with 109 counts each of sexual exploitation of children related to pornographic images and related equipment found in their possession. The pornographic images were of 5 and 15 year old girls. The charges were filed in Georgia -- only. A previous charge filed against Fisher - relating to child abuse of a female in Pennsylvania was dropped.

      There is no evidence of Daniels abusing male children. So the exploitation/porn charges are irrelevant to Sandusky's guilt.

      Sandusky offered up that he was in bed with a boy. He also offered up he hugged boys while naked. Try that yourself and see what happens.

      Take care,
      Ray

      Delete
    9. Ray, I saw you post about Jerry having Aaron Fisher lay on top of him in bed. I remember when one of my two boys, at age 7 or 8, wanted me to lie next to him until he fell asleep. I remember once or twice, being so tired, he just plopped onto the bed on top of me. Pretty uncomfortable having a 80 lbs kid fall asleep on you. Rarely happens but I wasn't going to push him away until he fell asleep. Sometimes kids like closeness, they outgrow it, that doesn't mean there is sex involved. Of course I never showered with kids, and that's why I thought Jerry guilty until 2014. But I do remember being in Rec Hall showers, being uncomfortable, and went back to dorm to shower.

      Delete
  8. Ray,

    If Amendola was in on the charade all the more reason to suspect foul play. Look picking a fight with you is not my intent. I have too much respect for all the work you've done and for your experience and knowledge which is far far greater than mine. I have read most everything you and John Ziegler have posted and just wish you two could work together more like you did in the beginning of this all. Problem is John doesn't seem to believe in the governmental ill doings or any conspiracies you may be close to uncovering.and you seem somewhat close minded about any possibility of Jerrys innocence. Together I think you could blow this thing out of water or at least have a better chance at it. This scandal has ripped me apart for 3 years as I have the utmost respect for Joe Paterno and have not felt the same about PSU since his legacy was destroyed for no reason at all. I believe this scandal is rotten to the core and you guys have done a great and noble job in trying to uncover it. Please don't give up and use every resource you have. All Penn Staters are counting on you!! Thanks again Ray and good luck!



    Scott "91"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Scott.

      I will keep pressing forward with the help and support of many PSU alumni, friends, and fans like you. My time to work on this is limited, so I have to choose which battles I will fight and which battles I will let others fight.

      I have many irons in the fire right now concerning improving PA's child protection system, revealing the truth about the NCAA and the Board's doings, taking down Louis Freeh, and exposing the corruption of the PSU Board of Trustees.

      Again, thanks for your support.

      For the glory,
      Ray




      Delete
  9. Much respect Ray! Fight on! We Are!!

    Scott

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ray,
    I suspect the current battle between Attorney General Kane and Frank Fina's "Grand Jury defense team" will have a major impact on the PSU3 case. Kane was handed the case just as she was handed several other tainted Fina cases. Politics ruled above the law.

    ReplyDelete