In Part 1 of the series, Brad Bumsted and Terry Madonna, among others, used a concocted leak case against former Attorney General Kathleen Kane to deflect attention away from her outing of corrupt elements of the Pennsylvania criminal justice system who were intimately involved in the Sandusky case.
Another deflection was carried out by the editorial board of the Patriot News and its award winning reporters Sara Ganim (now of CNN) and Charlie Thompson. This group has very busy keeping the focus on Penn State and Joe Paterno -- while deflecting attention away from the people who were paid with PA's tax dollars to protect children.
Those people were employed by the (then) Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS).
The blatant falsehoods, fabrications, and lies by omission of the Patriot News are too numerous to count (see my nine part series).
However, one of the greatest deflections was the Patriot News November 13, 2011 op-ed calling for reforms to the PA child abuse reporting laws.
As was the case with their entire reporting on the scandal, it supported the PACORN prosecutor's tortured version of the law and the statutes of limitations. While the editors tried to dance around the laws as much as possible, they still managed to mention that the 2007 law was retroactively applied (ex post facto) to the 2002 (sic) incident.
The Patriot News employs a solicitor or legal counsel to review column. We know this because Sara Ganim made a remark that the lawyers assisted largely in her story that broke news of the investigation.
The editorial board, apparently attempting to feign ignorance about the FTR law or that it employs lawyers, used the Office of Attorney General's (OAG) incorrect interpretation that PSU was a school (it wasn't) and that the "person in charge" of the school was responsible for the report.
Next, in an attempt to explain away the lack of charges against former PSU President Graham Spanier, the editorial board stated the law was ill defined regarding who the "person in charge" is.
Did the editorial board -- and OAG -- not understand the "person in charge" at Penn State is called "the President?"
Of course they did.
In addition, the editors made no attempt to explain why two individuals who would never remotely be considered the "person in charge" of a school -- an Athletic Director (AD) and a Senior Vice-President (SVP) -- were facing charges.
They knew what was going on with the bogus charges because they had seen this go down before in Bonusgate and Computergate.
They knew the PA OAG had yet to manufacture the case against Spanier.
Those things take time.
Documents need to be altered.
Witnesses need to be coerced.
In short, the OAG didn't possess the evidence -despite having the original PSU emails and notes -- to get AD Tim Curley and/or SVP Gary Schultz to flip and testify against Spanier.
The so called members of the Fourth Estate, who are given protection under the law as guardians of the truth, went along with the corrupt prosecutions of innocent people for perjury and FTR.
That is appalling.
Even more appalling was their own work in accusing PSU officials of endangering all 8 Sandusky victims.
Who Could Have Done More?
The central question in the Penn State child sex abuse
allegations is who is culpable?
It is a legal question and a moral one. Who could have done
The accompanying image and opinions in their dishonest op-ed clearly made the case that all 8 Sandusky victims could have been spared had PSU officials made a phone call in 2001.
The fact of the matter was that the November 2011 grand jury presentment stated that seven of the eight children were victimized on or before the 2001 incident.
There was nothing a phone call in 2001 could have done to stop those events from occurring.
And they knew it.
The dishonesty continued as the editorial board wrote:
"If Pennsylvania had child abuse reporting laws such as
Connecticut (which requires reporting to police or a state
agency), the alleged Sandusky abuse might not have
continued beyond 2000 or 2002 or even earlier."
In 1998, both the police and a state agency were involved in the investigation -- after that call got made by PSU Detective Ronald Schreffler.
The Patriot News knew this because -- in a November 23, 2011 column, editor David Newhouse revealed that Sara Ganim obtained the 1998 University Park police report in early (January) 2011.
The editorial board of the Patriot News didn't even mention 1998 Sandusky investigation in its op-ed!
The 1998 police report was over 100 pages in length and contained the details of the investigation.
According to the redacted version, released in March 2012, the interview transcript of Victim #6 and the report of Dr. Alycia Chambers were attached to it.
The Sandusky PCRA exhibits contained almost the full transcript of the Victim 6 interview -- and it provided very convincing evidence that Sandusky was using his charity's Friend Fitness program workouts as a grooming tool.
Moreover, the report of Dr. Alycia Chambers was similarly damning and labeled Sandusky as a possible pedophile.
Ganim, Thompson, and the editors surely understood that evidence should have resulted in child welfare investigators taking steps to prevent Sandusky's access to children. Instead of reporting it that way, they (and the OAG) blamed the 1998 failure on the dead guy -- former District Attorney Ray Gricar.
Had the full details in the 1998 police report been reported, it would have surely put the blame for enabling Sandusky's crimes where it belonged -- Pennsylvania's child protection system.
They weren't about to let that information see the light of day.
|Ganim and editors Feely, Newhouse, and Barron deflected attention away from 1998 failure.|
Regardless of the facts, making the story about Penn State and Paterno benefited them. They were choosing to win a Pulitzer Prize rather than protecting the welfare of PA's children.
They tore down a legend.
They tore down a University.
They won a Pulitzer.
They kept the public in the dark and endangered children.
The issue was not the reporting law.
The bottom line was that DPW failed after the call was made.
In a craftily written, but dishonest piece, Sara Ganim, excused the failures of DPW by reporting that its investigator, Jerry Lauro, never saw the Chambers report. In fact, her report accused PSU officials of hiding the report from him.
Ganim, the seemingly intrepid reporter who got scoop after scoop, wrote next nothing about the contents of the rather significant 1998 psychology report of Dr. Chambers (that had been in her possession since January 2011). In fact, she pretended (in March 2012) that she had not seen the report and that it was shown to her by another person.
Obviously, she was unaware that David Newhouse revealed she possessed the report four months earlier.
|Ganim's dishonest reporting on the Sandusky scandal won a Pulitzer & a job at CNN.|
She also knew that the 1998 police report confirmed Lauro was intimately involved in setting a second evaluation of Victim 6.
Lauro, to escape his role in the colossal 1998 failure, alleged that the PSU police "never shared any of these (reports) with me."
Ganim, reported the dubious statement as evidence that Lauro was unaware of the Chambers report. However, it was obvious he could have obtained it through other means.
The Chambers report was provided to the PSU police and CYS on May 7th. She had also made a report to DPW. Lauro's last known contact with CYS was on May 27th.
But Lauro somehow never saw or was told about Chambers oral or written report?
The Patriot News was obviously not interested in getting to the bottom of this "missing" report. Its only two mentions of Dr. Chambers were in relation to her receiving a subpoena to testify in May 2012 and a June 2011 report of her vehicle striking a deer.
Up to May 2012, Dr. Chambers was referred to as "the first psychologist" and the "female psychologist" in its reports.
There is little doubt why the Patriot News, that was set on winning a Pulitzer prize, was avoiding this rather big story that had the potential to undermine their fabrications of a PSU cover up.
Again, the editorial board chose winning a Pulitzer over telling the truth and fixing a broken child protection system. To put it bluntly -- the editorial board of the Patriot News decided the kids could get screwed (literally).
The editors continue to avoid any meaningful discussion of the 1998 investigation.
|Micek: Avoiding real discussion of PA problems|
When invited to discuss the failures of DPW and the 1998 Sandusky investigation and other problems with child protection in a public forum, editor John Micek appeared willing but didn't make himself available.
The avoidance to discuss child protection issues and the 1998 Sandusky investigation speaks volumes.
The editors of the Patriot News know that if they had to defend the Pulitzer prize winning reports in a public forum, their deflections and falsehoods would be exposed.