Wednesday, May 31

Raykovitz, Others Should Have Faced EWOC Charges

Ample evidence reveals that Dr. Jack Raykovitz and others knowingly endangered the welfare of children by turning a blind eye to Sandusky's continued contact with children after January 2009 

By
Ray Blehar
May 31, 2017; 10:11 AM

During former Penn State University (PSU) president Graham Spanier’s trial for Endangering the Welfare of Children (EWOC) and related conspiracy, Dr. Jack Raykovitz testified about Jerry Sandusky’s role at The Second Mile (TSM) charity and the 2001 incident on the PSU campus.

The Commonwealth tried to portray Sandusky as simply the figurehead of TSM and Raykovitz, for the most part played along.  He made two false statements under oath regarding Sandusky’s contact with children through the charity.   

Sandusky’s Role in Children’s Programs

Raykovitz (falsely) testified that Sandusky was not part of any therapy or programs at the charity and that he mostly gave speeches to kids or addressed groups.

That testimony was rebutted by Wendell Courtney on the first day of the trial.

Courtney testified (at 181) that Sandusky was involved in TSM’s fitness programs (i.e., Friend Fitness) and mentoring programs.


Moreover, numerous victims testified during the Sandusky played with them in the swimming pool during TSM’s Summer Challenge (i.e., summer camps) programs.  In addition, defense witnesses at the trial testified that Sandusky served as a mentor to them.  

TSM counselors and volunteers also confirmed that Sandusky’s mentorship of teen boys was well known by nearly everyone at the charity.  One stated that Sandusky would usually appear at Summer Challenge camp every evening – when it was time for the swimming activity -- with the teen he was mentoring in tow.

It is almost certain that Ditka knew Raykovitz was being untruthful about this subject – and a few others during his testimony.

Access to Children after January 2009

Interestingly, Raykovitz later contradicted his first statement when he told another lie under direct questioning by Laura Ditka.  
Ditka asked about the charity’s actions after Clinton County Children and Youth Services (Clinton CYS) called TSM about an abuse complaint in 2008.   Raykovitz responded that the charity “separated him from all programs after that call.” 



Sandusky lost his ChildLine clearance to work with children in January 2009.  
A ChildLine clearance (i.e., background check) is required for employees and volunteers who have routine interaction with children.  Routine interaction is defined as regular and repeated contact that is integral to a person’s employment or volunteer responsibilities.
Raykovitz’s testimony that Sandusky did not have access to kids in TSM after the November 2008 phone call was clearly false based on ample evidence in the public domain.  

News Reports

The most well-known account of Sandusky’s role at the charity after his abuse finding was penned by Sara Ganim in August 2012.  Ganim wrote a five-part series on TSM’s response to the Sandusky abuse investigation.   She quoted then-TSM board member Louis Sheetz, who explained Sandusky’s role at the charity after he “resigned” in 2009:

“I know the people who run the golf outing said, ‘He’s a big reason why people come — to see him.’ That makes sense, in my opinion. That’s not involved in programming,” said Louie Sheetz, executive vice president of marketing for his family’s chain of Pennsylvania gas stations and convenience stores.

Those who attended golf outings reported that it was typical for one of the children Sandusky was mentoring to be riding next to him in the golf cart.   That would seemingly qualify for access to children at a sanctioned event or program.

Here are additional accounts of Sandusky’s fundraising role and contact with children after January 2009.
 A news report from The Progress, a local news outlet serving Clearfield, Curwensville, Philipsburg, and Moshannon Valley, reported that Sandusky would be speaking at the Clearfield County Chapter of The Second Mile's all-sports banquet to be held on March 1, 2009.  





































From the article:

“Dinner will follow at 5:30 p.m. in the high school cafeteria before those in attendance move to the auditorium where The Second Mile founder Jerry Sandusky will speak, and the players will share stories about their journeys to becoming collegiate student-athletes.”


A November 2011, KDKA Pittsburgh news report revealed allegations from a mother that Sandusky was present at TSM’s Summer Challenge Camp in 2010. 





The Allentown Morning Call reported Sandusky also attended a celebrity banquet and fundraiser in Fogelsville, Pennsylvania just months after being "indicated."  Sandusky also attended that banquet in 2010.

Whether or not crimes were committed after Raykovitz knew of Sandusky's abuse investigation is irrelevant to the EWOC statute.  As such, by allowing Sandusky continued access to children and not completely severing Sandusky from the charity, he was knowingly endangering children.



Sandusky’s Crimes after 2009

There is some dispute over whether or not Sandusky victimized children after being “indicated” for abuse in 2009.   Two individuals, Victim 9 and D.F., are on the public record that they were victimized after 2008 and perhaps into 2009.  

Victim 9
Victim 9 testified that he was in contact with Sandusky and was victimized through his sixteenth birthday that occurred on July 29, 2009. 



Earlier direct testimony at the trial revealed that Victim 9 equivocated when asked when the abuse ended, stating he was 15 or 16.    However, he was definitive under cross-examination (above).   Victim 9’s civil lawsuit stated he was victimized past his sixteenth birthday.

The Commonwealth’s first Bill of Particulars, dated February 21, 2012, identified the summer of 2009 as the end date of Victim 9’s victimization.   In May 2018, Fina changed the end date to December 2008 – which is after the call to TSM but before Sandusky was “indicated” for abuse.


Based on evidence of Fina’s deceptions during the Sandusky and Conspiracy of Silence cases as well as Victim 9’s testimony and lawsuit, it is almost certain that the amended Bill of Particulars and date change was a C.Y.A. move by the Office of Attorney General (OAG).  

The delay in arresting Sandusky endangered Victim 9.

D.F.
The D.F. civil lawsuit stated he was a participant in TSM from 2004 through 2012 and was groomed and victimized by Sandusky in 2008 and/or 2009.   The lawsuit is unclear about when the incident in 2009 occurred or if it occurred in 2009 at all.
During the press conference for Geoffrey Moulton’s investigation of the Sandusky case, then AG Kathleen Kane stated that there were two individuals who made claims of being victimized after 2009.  D.F. was one of those individuals.
Fina confirmed that information, but he also told the press that D.F. was uncertain about the date and had credibility issues.  A fair reading of the D.F. lawsuit reveals that Fina was honest about the date issue but was dishonest regarding D.F’s credibility.
D.F.’s account was every bit as credible as Victim 10’s – who Fina presented as a witness at the Sandusky trial and was able to secure guilty verdicts for his allegations.
There is little doubt that the jury would have convicted some or all of D.F.'s allegations if he had been presented as a witness.  

Conclusions

Given all the information in the public domain about Sandusky’s interactions with children after 2009, it is clear that Ditka, Schulte, and other prosecutors before them, like Frank Fina and Bruce Beemer, were turning a blind eye to evidence of Sandusky’s illicit contact with children while he was a volunteer at TSM.

Not only should Raykovitz have been charged with EWOC, but so should Fina and others who purposely delayed the arrest of Sandusky.

14 comments:

  1. Well, as usual Ray you clearly show us the evidence that proves who the guilty parties actually are concerning this Sandusky/Second Mile debacle. It's frustrating though because we've all seen it with your help going on 6 years now. There can't still be many members of the PA public that actually believe the court's verdicts and the newspapers headlines are truthful any longer in this corrupt state.

    Governor Wolf and Josh Shapiro have put up their united front of corruption against those that want to talk about The Second Mile. In my opinion, Governor Wolf and Josh Shapiro serve the Zionist Mafia and not our U.S. Constitution. If they did uphold their oath, they would answer questions posed to them about The Second Mile. Instead, they set up faux-transparency question and answer sessions on Facebook or twitter. The people that pose these questions to them about investigating The Second Mile are concerned, educated and articulate members of our public. And ignoring them and their questions like they don't exist is quite clearly a hallmark of corruption. It certainly isn't a hallmark of our democracy.

    So as you end this piece with, "Raykovitz, Fina, and others should have been charged with EWOC for delaying the arrest of Sandusky", a question we all still have is, when will they be charged? I thought Mr. "no comment" Shapiro said "no one is above the law". Oh that's right, he'd have to put himself in jail as a traitor for subverting our American justice system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truthseeker,
      Thanks for your comments.

      I agree that Shapiro and Wolf are part of the corruption in Pennsylvania and are not putting the interests of citizens first.

      The only way these corrupt politicians and prosecutors will ever get what's coming to them is for the Feds to step in. As the OPM investigator, John Snedden said, that help will have to come from outside the state of Pennsylvania.

      Delete
    2. Lawyers for Spanier, Schultz, and Curley are too timid in defending their clients as well. I think they understand that by questioning certain aspects of this case might open them (and their clients) to more public scorn given the way the media has been unbalanced.

      It really is past time for these lawyers to go on the offense as it were. Self-preservation may be their primary motivation The clients best defense may be secondary.

      Delete
    3. J for J,
      Well, it's too late for Tim and Gary's attorneys. They blew it when their clients signed guilty pleas.

      Spanier's attorney needs to go on offense during the appeal.

      Delete
  2. Well, hoping the sentencing today goes well for CSS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well done Ray. I agree. I think the prosecution wanted a juicy story so they concocted a conspiracy by Penn State administrators.

    Indicting the obscure CEO of a regional children's charity would not have made as many headlines and would have put a spotlight on mistakes by the OAG, CYS and DPW, who have oversight of children's charities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So Curley and Schultz go to jail even after they agreed to a plea deal? Usually a plea deal is reached to avoid going to jail. Sounds like the plea deal was just a con job to get guilty verdicts from the two and still send them to jail.

    Graham Spanier will not be tricked and intimidated into saying he is guilty of something when he is not. And he, of course is put in jail by the Zionist Mafia that call themselves the law.

    Which is better----tell the world you are guilty of something you didn't do and go to jail, or tell the world the truth of your innocence and still go to jail? Ponder this question carefully and realize there is courage and victory to be found in Graham Spanier's sentence today. The modern day Pharisees that have jailed these three innocent men simply cannot maintain their continued immoral and illegal ways.

    Pennsylvania does not benefit in any way from the lies and false witness coming from Josh Shapiro, Laura Ditka, and Judge John Boccabella. Give some thought to who actually does temporarily and superficially benefit from their lies and false witness and you will see those that have renounced the will of God on earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The deal they got was to plead guilty to a minor charge in exchange for dropping more serious charges. It seemed like a poor deal but they took it presumably because they thought they couldn't get a fair trial and would have been convicted of the more serious charges.

      They promised Curley house arrest because of his lung cancer but he apparently didn't even get that.

      I haven't read the transcript yet but it was reported that the judge said the defendants were not criminals but “good people who made a terrible mistake.”

      Then he ignored that and gave them a harsher than normal sentence. The judge then criticized a dead Joe Paterno for not doing more. Jay Paterno called that "an abuse of their office," and I agree.

      I don't really have much confidence in the PA judicial system.

      Delete
    2. Truth and Tim,
      After almost six years of this stuff, the evidence is overwhelming that the PA Courts and Criminal Justice System are corrupt.

      I believe I just read a filing in the Sandusky case that said no new matters would be accepted. I don't know whether that means Eshbach's leak is in or if it is out. But if it is out,then it's another example of how the system selectively prosecutes people.

      Delete
    3. Ray - Are the Spanier trial transcripts online?

      The Dauphin County Courthouse website has a link to the Spanier case that lists hundreds of documents but the trial transcripts do not seem to be there.

      Delete
    4. Sorry for the late response. You actually have to contact the clerk of the court in Dauphin County who will direct you to the recorder.

      Delete
  5. Meanwhile, on the same day as the sentencing of CSS, it was reported that a school bus driver in the Oley, PA school District pleaded no contest to assault charges involving two students. The first incident occurred in 2001 and the second in 2008. The mother of one of the students contacted the school, which contacted the bus company that hired the driver. The driver was fired. Sound familiar? Here is what is different- the Chief of Berks County Detectives said law enforcement was not contacted in either incident, "but noted the incidents occurred before mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse allegations were in effect". Excuse me? Translation- Penn State had deep pockets and a nationally known football coach. Oley School District is a small district in Eastern Berks County.

    This totally proves your point Ray.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ray - You don't even need to go beyond the Raykovitz testimony at the Spanier trial to prove perjury by Raykovitz. At the Spanier trial during cross-examination, Raykovitz contradicted his earlier testimony that Sandusky was not involved in counseling or giving therapy to Second Mile boys.

    Raykovitz testified on page 20 of the transcript that "Jerry volunteered that it was a Second Mile child" in the Penn State shower with him in 2001.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/cy7qms3dn6wvchb/Raykovitz%20Transcript.pdf?dl=0

    That was a bombshell admission that Spanier's lawyer completely failed to address.

    Raykovitz's testimony made clear that he condoned Sandusky working out alone with a Second Mile boy and showering alone with a Second Mile boy. Raykovitz didn't tell Sandusky not to be alone with a Second Mile boy. All Raykovitz recommended in 2001 was that Sandusky wear a swimsuit when showering with a Second Mile boy after a workout.

    Spanier's lawyer missed numerous opportunities when he crossed Raykovitz. Prosecutors portrayed Raykovitz as a professional psychologist, which was misleading because on the internet he is listed as a licensed child psychologist. Spanier's lawyer should have asked him how many of his patients have been children.

    Raykovitz should have been asked how many reports to Childline he or others at Second Mile made.

    He should have been asked if CYS ever notified Second Mile of Sandusky being accused of child abuse in 1998.

    I could go on and on about pertinent questions that Spanier's lawyer failed to ask Raykovitz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, I agree. It's so obvious that Graham Spanier was betrayed by his lawyer. If laymen are so easily pointing out the "missed" opportunities to properly defend Spanier, then these opportunities were intentionally avoided by the "professional" that was hired to defend him---pure betrayal.

      Delete