McGettigan's and Fina's Conduct Questionable At Sandusky Trial

Despite statements to the opposite, prosecutors put PSU on trial along with Sandusky, with eyes on future prosecutions of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.  

By

Ray Blehar

Prosecutor McGettigan’s opening statement provided a preview of what would be the Commonwealth’s ongoing tactic of "anchoring" the idea of conspiracy and cover-up by PSU officials during the Sandusky trial, while leveling no culpability on The Second Mile.  To wit:

“Now is it possible that earlier signs of abuse were observed or heard by persons involved in The Second Mile occurred (sic)? No.  Were the Pennsylvania State University heard? I don’t know.  Is it possible those signs could have been responded to in a different benefaction? Indeed.”

McGettigan would later say that neither PSU or The Second Mile was on trial, but it was clear PSU was definitely in the prosecution's sights -- even though it is a fact that the charity knew of the 2001 allegation against Sandusky and did nothing.

For example, Second Mile Board Member, Bruce Heim, made the following statement:

“For five years, I worked out at the football facility, several times a week, and saw Jerry showering with children.  I said I don’t think it’s relevant. It happens every day at the YMCA. I remember the conversation specifically because it seemed like a nonstarter because of what Penn State said went on.”

But this trial was going to be about PSU's culpability whenever possible and McGettigan and Fina made that happen.

Victim 4

McGettigan and Fina's slanting of the facts did not stop at the opening statement but was evident when he called Victim 4 to the stand first. Victim 4 testified that all of his abuse took place on the PSU campus or at football related events, such as overnight bowl trips and pre-game activities at Toftrees.  He is the only victim in the Sandusky case to stay over at Sandusky's home and claim never to be abused there.  

The prosecution introduced numerous evidence exhibits during Victim 4's testimony that were football related, such as photographs of players with Victim 4, video clips of the victim, photos from the Alamo Bowl, and pictures of the PSU locker rooms.   This was all done up front to seal the narrative tying Sandusky's abuse of the victims to his role as a PSU football coach.

The following passage from the Washington Post's Joel Achenbach confirmed the effectiveness of McGettigan’s “anchoring” strategy that began with Victim 4 and continued throughout the trial:

“The prosecution had won the case on the very first day of testimony, when “Victim 4” took the stand and told his story. He was devastatingly credible. He spoke frankly, graphically. It was a brave performance, prefiguring the courage of the other seven victims who came forward later. When Victim 4 was at his most vulnerable as a boy, lacking a father figure, Sandusky had swooped in like a guardian angel…Sandusky had an abnormal fixation on the boy not yet in high school”

Victim 2

The prosecution's strategy to treat Victim 2 as an "unknown" individual also was highly questionable, if not unethical.   Victim 2 - who recently received a settlement from PSU - gave a statement to an FBI trained investigator that he was not abused during the incident witnessed by McQueary.   Based on the voicemail messages of Jerry Sandusky, it is presumed that Victim 2 was interviewed by the police in September of 2011 and, according the multiple sources, vehemently denied abuse took place.  Rather than call Victim 2 as a witness and have him possibly impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary, they lied to the jury and told them that they did not know the identity of the victim.  The defense team went along with the charade because they were not sure how Victim 2 would testify either.  He had obtained a civil lawyer and was now suing Sandusky for abuse.   

Quite frankly, the Victim 2 episode was just one of many occasions where the prosecutors (and judge) made a mockery of the system.

At the sentencing hearing, McGettigan made this blasphemous statement about Victim 2  (and Victim 8)...

"And two others will not speak because they're identities are known only to themselves, this defendant, and God. Perhaps the year has caused their silence or undeserving shame but the jury rightly did them justice and I speak for them and their rights to justice as well as those who testified before Your Honor."

Unfortunately for Frank Fina, Victim 2 is probably going to make an appearance at the trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier and things are sure to get very interesting.

Victim 3

At trial, Victim 3 testified that he met Sandusky in 1998 and stayed at Sandusky’s house over a three-year span (1998-2000).   However, Victim 3’s testimony on page 95 stated that his attendance at football games occurred only when Sandusky was an active coach, thus placing his interactions with Sandusky up to the year  2000.  Victim 3 stated he attended five games, which would be less than a full season’s slate of home games.

Victim 3’s admission of contact with Sandusky in 2001 was established in response to a question from prosecutor McGettigan in which he moved the last year of the three-year span of contact to 2001.

Not so ironically, Agent Anthony Sassano could not recall Victim 3 as one of the "endangered" children when he testified at the preliminary hearing on July 30, 2013 (page 7).

 Victim 5

The case of Victim 5 was discussed somewhat extensively in this blogpost.  It's clear from the Bill of Particulars that the date was changed from 1998 to 2001 to put Victim 5 in the timeframe for being "endangered" by the alleged failures of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to make a report.

PSU's lawyers jumped on the bandwagon here as well, stating that the Victim 5 crime could have been prevented if PSU had acted on McQueary's report.  This is rather strong evidence that the PSU BOT is in bed with the prosecutors in ensuring that their firing of Spanier and Paterno is "upheld" by the trial verdicts in the upcoming trial.

Victim 8/Janitor Incident

This incident also has the earmarks of highly unethical behavior.  As I reported, the eyewitness janitor was not even working at PSU at the time of the incident and there were numerous other physical and temporal evidence that made the crime impossible, but the unethical aspects of the prosecutors in this incident appear to be three fold. 

First, the crime scene was changed from the Lasch Building Assistant Coach's locker room to the Staff Locker Room.  The reason for the change was the defense had argued that Petrosky could not see above the legs of Sandusky and the victim, thus the eyewitness would have had the same view - and been unable to see the crime.  Fina interjected and changed the crime scene during the defense's argument.  

The next questionable move was in arguing for the admission of the hearsay testimony, the prosecution stated a second janitor, Jay Witherite, would testify to bolster Petrosky's story.   Witherite never testified and no explanation was given for his absence.

The final apparently questionable move on the part of the prosecution was to wait until they had called all of their witnesses, then stipulated that the eye-witness, James Calhoun, was incompetent to testify.  The prosecution did not have a medical record to buttress this claim, nor did they have a letter from a doctor.  They simply said that Dr. Bharat Adroja, if he were present, would say that Calhoun was not competent.  And when did Adroja make this determination?  June 11, 2011 - the first day of the Sandusky trial.

Amazingly, the jury bought this nonsensical story about the janitor and convicted Sandusky on all five charges related to the incident. 

Louis Freeh used this incident to indict Penn State's football culture "from top (Spanier) to the bottom (janitors)" for enabling the abuse of children.

Closing Remarks

McGettigan and Fina will be featured on 60 Minutes Sports.  In earlier airing on CBSNews, the prosecutors stated they believe a cover-up by Schultz, Curley, and Spanier occurred and they stand behind the Freeh Report.  However, Fina stated that he saw no evidence that confirmed Paterno had a role in the cover-up, but went on to say Paterno should have done more.

While there is little doubt that Sandusky committed several crimes involving the abuse of children, there is also little doubt that he didn't receive a fair trial.  And now it appears the Sandusky prosecutors are attempting to ensure the other PSU officials don't get a fair trial either.  See below....

Rule 8.4. Misconduct.
 It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d)  engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

Freeh Found Nothing During His Investigation, Followed Corbett's Blueprint

The testimony of John Corro and Kimberly Belcher confirmed that Freeh didn't find anything during his investigation of PSU.   Freeh was brought in by Frazier (and Corbett) to ensure blame fell on Penn State only.

by
Ray Blehar

While Penn State alumni and fans were still reeling from the shock of the dismissal of legendary football coach Joe Paterno, the BOT broke "radio silence" on November 11, 2011 to announce that it had named Kenneth Frazier and Ronald Tomalis as the leaders of the Special Investigations Task Force to review issues related to the Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz charges.

Just one week later, on November 18th, the Task Force had engaged with Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan (FSS) to conduct the investigation. When the alumni group, PS4RS, pressed Frazier and the BOT about the details of the selection process, Frazier would not disclose how many other firms were considered or how the selection was determined.   FSS was a new venture for Freeh and the firm had no track record, however, Louis Freeh certainly did.

Freeh's history as the former Director of the FBI was highly controversial if not disastrous. The discovery of spy Robert Hanssen, the Wen Ho Lee case, the Olympic Park bombing investigation, the wasteful procurement of Virtual Case File, and the failure to act on reports of suspected terrorists doing flight training all happened on Freeh's watch.  He was urged to resign by the editorial board of Business Week for the Waco cover-up and for insubordination of then U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.

Despite Freeh's history, he was selected for the job with much fanfare about his independence, integrity, and the wide scope of his investigation from  Frazier and Tomalis.  Little did Frazier and Tomalis know, at the time, that PSU would eventually release the engagement letter that defined the "small box" Freeh was kept inside to conduct the investigation.  In other words, focus only on PSU and exclude anyone else who may have had a role in enabling Sandusky's crimes.

Task Force Co-Chair, Kenneth "OJ" Frazier, remarked:

“The entire Board of Trustees is intent on taking all steps necessary to ensure that our institution never again has to ask whether it did the right thing, or whether or not it could have done more. We are committed to leaving no stone unturned to get to the bottom of what happened, who knew what when, and what changes we must make to ensure this doesn’t happen again. Therefore, we are pleased that Judge Freeh has agreed to lead a thorough and independent investigative review of this matter,”


Task Force Co-Chair, Ronald Tomalis, stated:

 “Judge Freeh is a man of complete integrity, independence and objectivity. The scope of his work will be expansive, and he is free to take his work to whatever conclusions he deems appropriate. No one at Penn State will be exempt from this review, including the Board of Trustees itself.”



Questionable Independence
Blogger Marc Rubin (Tom In Paine) raised serious questions about the independence of Louis Freeh.  In an  rather extensive blogpost, Rubin reported on Freeh's former working relationship with former MBNA V.P. of Consumer Finance, Ric Struthers, who also sat on the Board of The Second Mile (TSM).   As most know and Rubin reported, MBNA/BofA would provide the credit card services to PSU and pay over $30M for access to its lists of alumni.

Struthers was not only on the Board of Directors at TSM, but donated at least $540,000 to TSM from 2005 to 2010 (including corporate donations from MBNA/BofA).  In addition, Struthers was an at-large member of PSU's Campaign for the Future fund raising effort.

Not so ironically, the "thorough and independent" Freeh Report didn't report the relationship between TSM Board Member Ric Struthers, Freeh, and PSU.

Rubber Stamp Investigation
However, it was the statement of Governor Tom Corbett that really foretold how the investigation would unfold or, in other words, be nothing more than a rubber stamp on the PA Attorney General's investigation. As the Freeh Report would eventually demonstrate, it would deviate very little from the facts presented in the grand jury presentment.

"I'm very pleased with Ken Frazier leading that. Ken – I've only known him a short time – but I'm very impressed with his leadership. I'm very impressed that he has put together some people, including Ron Tomalis, on behalf of the administration and also as [state] secretary of education, on that team, and the selection of Louis Freeh is I think a very good one. I'm sure most of you by now know the former director of the FBI and former federal judge Louis Freeh was appointed.

And I think one of the reasons that someone like Mr. Freeh was appointed is because he understands the role of a grand jury investigation, the role of the prosecutors and will work well with the attorney general's office and Attorney General Linda Kelly so that [obstruction of the attorney general's investigation] does not happen."

Freeh Report Short On Facts, High On Supposition

Any serious review of the Freeh Report found it to be woefully short on providing evidence to support the trumped up charges of "concealment" of Sandusky's crimes by PSU officials.  Former U.S. Attorney General, Richard Thornburg called it "inaccurative, speculative, and usupported by the record that was compiled in the course of preparing the report."   The Freeh invesigation uncovered so little evidence of improper activities by Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier that it had to sensationalize the issue of PSU granting emeritus status to Sandusky as a means of "beefing up" the report.  

Freeh's entire thesis of  concealment was tied to a handful of vague e-mails that Freeh, himself, deemed "the most important documents in this investigation" (Freeh Report, page 11).  In the same paragraph where Freeh made this claim, he made two other statements that falsely credited his Special Investigative Counsel for the discovery and the forensic analysis of the e-mail evidence (my emphasis added).  

"The University staff provided a large volume of raw data from computer systems, individual computers and computer devices.  The Special Investigative Counsel performed the forensic analysis and review of this raw data independent of the University Staff.  From this review and analysis the Special Investigative Counsel discovered...."

Much like the November 2011 grand jury presentment, the statements were false and eventually the truth would be revealed through the judicial proceedings of PSU officials Curley, Schultz and Spanier.

Freeh didn't find any e-mails - they were handed to him

At his press conference, Louis Freeh stated his team made "independent discovery" of the e-mails, that were the most important evidence in the Penn State case, in March of 2012.   Based on the testimony of John Corro, we now know that statement to be false.

John Corro testified on July 29, 2013 (pages 80, 89, and 90) that he searched PSU's distributed network for the e-mails of Sandusky, McQueary, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier in March/April of 2011. Corro stated he may have had his dates confused (page 85).

Corro  provided the results of his search to then-PSU counsel Cynthia Baldwin.  Baldwin was provided with three USB keys - one containing all the data and two others that were from key word searches.

On 30 July 2013, Braden Cook, OAG computer forensics supervisor, testified that in March 2012  the computer security unit of the OAG provided him with a DVD of Schultz's .pst archive from Outlook which contained all of the e-mails used as evidence in this case (pages 66-68).  Cook stated those files were somehow missing from the inventory that originally came over from PSU.    It should be noted that Cook did not testify to anything other than being a recipient of information from PSU and performing key word searches. In other words, other avenues of computer forensics investigations, such as checking of server logs, keystroke forensics, or recovery of deleted files were not utilized in the analysis.

Based on reports from observers at the preliminary hearing, Cook's testimony was well rehearsed and he stated that Spanier had deleted all the e-mails in his in-box and out-box upon his departure from PSU.  The implication being that Spanier was trying to hide or conceal information.  However, this point was contradicted by Corro's testimony a day earlier, who stated Spanier's out-box contained a large volume of data (page 95).

Corro also testified that in November 2011, he worked with OAG office officials to expand the search to include other individuals and devices, including cell phone, PDAs, laptops, and other devices.  According to Corro this information was turned over to the Freeh group and the OAG.  While this search may have uncovered 3.5 million files - as Freeh claimed - none of the files related to the key evidence used in the case.

Freeh's claims of his team discovering the e-mails is a bald-faced lie and Freeh was nothing more than a grandstanding liar at his July 12, 2012 press conference.

Discovery of The Schultz File - Another Lie By Freeh

At Freeh's July 12, 2012 press conference, he stated that the discover of the Schultz file was a combination of "skill and luck" and that Schultz actively "sought to conceal those records."

Schultz employment history alone contradicts that he could have concealed them from Freeh's team, given that he had re-retired from PSU before Freeh was hired to conduct the investigation.  Moreover, Schultz had originally retired from PSU in June of 2009 - well before PSU received a subpoena for records pertaining to Sandusky's employment and any correspondence related to investigations of Sandusky.

However, Kimberly Belcher's 30 July 2013 testimony truly exposed Freeh's lies about discovery of the Schultz file.  Belcher testified that after Schultz did not return to work after the November 2011 indictment, he called her to ask her to obtain his transitory file and deliver it to him.  Belcher stated that she recalled that confidential files were kept in the bottom drawer of a file and found the Sandusky file there.  She made a copy of the file and delivered the original to Schultz -- in order to "be helpful."  Eventually, Belcher received a subpoena for the file and turned it over to the OAG in April 2012.  Upon turning it over, she learned that Schultz and his attorney had turned over the original to the OAG one day earlier (page 66).

Later in the press conference, Freeh would say they found them "in conjunction with the attorney general."  However that statement is contradicted by the Freeh Report itself, which references all of the "Schultz Confidential Notes" with a date of 5-1-2012 -- meaning they were provided to Freeh's group after they were turned over to the OAG in April 2012.

If you're beginning to wonder if Freeh actually investigated anything, you're on the right track.

Outside of brow-beating older women and taking dictation from Cynthia Baldwin, Freeh didn't do much in terms of an investigation.

No Investigation of the Janitor Incident 

While the evidence surrounding the (now debunked) janitor incident shows a number of inconsistencies about the date it took place, the physical location of the incident, and the circumstances preceding its alleged occurrence, the most damning piece of evidence that proved Petrosky's story was false was the lack of a shower curtain or obstruction in the Assistant Coaches Locker Room.

The November 2011 grand jury presentment (page 22) stated that Petrosky looked into the shower and could only see the legs of Sandusky and the child because the upper bodies were blocked.

Had Freeh's team taken the most obvious investigative step and inspected the Assistant Coaches Locker Room, they would have learned there were no obstructions blocking the view into the shower, disproving the grand jury version of events provided by Petrosky.

It is truly amazing that Freeh's team was on campus for eight months and never checked the alleged crime scene.  It appears very clear that Freeh was toeing the line that Corbett had drawn -- and would do nothing  to obstruct Linda Kelly's investigation of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, as well as the prosecution of Sandusky.

Freeh accepted the grand jury testimony of Petrosky at face value and never bothered to update his report (Freeh Report page 65) to reflect the new testimony that Petrosky would present at the trial.  Freeh simply piled on and called the incident the "most horrific rape" that occurred on PSU's campus.

Sensationalizing Emeritus Status

After the first few months of the investigation at Penn State, Freeh's team had turned up little to no information that revealed Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were anything other than honest men who didn't understand what they were dealing with in Jerry Sandusky.

Interviews with Penn State employees and retirees was yielding nothing.  In fact, the Freeh team interviewed - and reports are they brow beat - a septuagenarian woman who formerly worked for Paterno to try to get her to admit some type of wrong-doing by Joe.  She held her ground.

With the case going nowhere, it appears that Task Force officials (Frazier, et al) and the Freeh Group decided that they would sensationalize the awarding of emeritus status to Sandusky.

While the Freeh Report "found" that Sandusky was not eligible for this "honor" and it was given to him only because Spanier had promised it to Sandusky (Freeh Report, page 55),  former PSU spokesperson Lisa Powers contradicted the findings in an article regarding the emeritus status former faculty member, Professor John Neisworth (who had been accused of child sexual abuse).

We asked Penn State why Professor Neisworth is still listed as a professor emeritus on the school’s website. She responded:

The emeritus title was granted after the charges were declared unfounded by police and the courts. It is common in academe to grant emeritus status — so he remains listed in our database as do our other emeriti faculty. He is not on campus and has not had an office since he retired. He no longer teaches here in any capacity.

Exhibit 3I of the Freeh Report indicated somewhat of a debate over the title of the emeritus position more than the granting of emeritus status, however, Rod Erickson, who eventually approved the request, stated that not too many assistant professors would be granted this honor.  A quick check of emeriti faculty in the Department of Kinesiology indicated an "associate professor emeritus" and a "senior research associate emeritus" on the rolls.  Finally, the HR representative, Janine Andrews, stated the historically they had granted exceptions in the rewarding of emeritus status.  

In conclusion, this issue was blown out of proportion by Freeh.

Not a Comprehensive and Thorough Report

Finally, if you really want to understand just how much respect BOT members like Kenneth Frazier have for the PSU alumni and our collective intelligence, all you need to do is read his remarks after the release of the Freeh Report.

Frazier 7/12/2012:  “We'd like to thank Judge Freeh for his diligence in uncovering the facts over the past eight months and for issuing such a comprehensive and thorough report today...The process we just underwent with Judge Freeh leading it was critical for all of us if we are to move forward.  We needed to understand what happened, to hold the appropriate individuals responsible for their actions and their failures to act, and identify the changes that need to be made in our University community."


Move forward.  Don't ask questions. We know what's best for Penn State.

Kenneth Frazier and the rest of the trustees underestimated not only the intelligence of the alumni but our persistence.  We recognized a fraud when we saw it (and him) and we we're not going to go away until the fraud (Freeh) is exposed.

Karen Peetz stated (hoped) that the whole Sandusky affair would be a distant memory by 2014.

And perhaps I agree with Ms. Peetz in one way - by 2014, perhaps the Freeh Report will be tossed on ash heap of history.

Holly Swanson: If the Truth Is Out There, Ray Blehar Will Find It.

By Holly Swanson, StateCollege.com
August 7, 2013

Even if you haven’t been paying attention to the court hearings, the Freeh Report, or public scapegoating, you know that over the 22 months of the Sandusky scandal, lines have been drawn in anger.

There are many sides to the story and there is extensive finger-pointing, mostly based on how key statements can be interpreted in different ways. The same testimony can be twisted to support or refute any viewpoint.

While many people cast their judgments based on quick soundbites and predetermined conclusions, there are a few voices who see through the misinterpretations, and, in some cases, the deliberate misleading of the Freeh Report, the NCAA, and child social services.

One of these voices is Ray Blehar.

More than anyone else, Ray has provided clarity on issues that have puzzled hundreds of other people. While the average reader of the Freeh Report might think something seems odd about the janitors’ eyewitness account of abuse in November 2000, Ray took a closer look at the details and discovered, based on Penn State’s payroll records, that the janitor was not a University employee during the time in question, thus could not have witnessed the crime.

See ... Ray’s not just your average arm-chair detective reading through the mountains of reports, he’s a United States government analyst, a senior requirements analyst, to be exact.

For his day job, he evaluates the affordability and performance of major systems acquisitions and, in a previous role with the Board of Examiners for the U.S. Senate, he examined aspects of organizational governance, including legal and ethical responsibilities, operational performance, and financial accountability. So basically, he knows his stuff.

Ray also received an MBA from the Smeal College of Business at Penn State, but don’t assume that this indicates loyalty to the university. He said in a recent interview with Frank Bodani of the York Daily Record, "If I have to burn Penn State to the ground, I will." I asked Ray this week what he will do if he uncovers indisputable evidence that there was an elaborate conspiracy at Penn State?

“Any evidence that I uncover that can be used in a criminal prosecution is turned over to law enforcement,” Ray says. “Past, present, and future. If that evidence incriminates people at Penn State, so be it.”

Read More

Framing Paterno: Why the preliminary hearing exposed case against PSU as a fraud

By John Ziegler

Wed, 07/31/2013 - 15:31

In just the last couple of weeks here is just some of what we have learned:It is rather amazing and illuminating that so much new has happened in the last couple of weeks of the so-called “Penn State Scandal.” After all, since most of the possible punishments have already been decided and enforced (possibly permanently), you would think that we would already know the vast majority of knowledge available regarding what actually did, and did not, happen. Obviously, the fact that this is clearly not the case, proves, if nothing else, that there has been a massive and irrational rush to judgment in this story. 

• That Joe Paterno gave an interview to the attorney general’s office just two weeks before he was fired in which he directly contradicts the key “cover up” email in the Freeh Report and raises the likelihood that Freeh purposely withheld exculpatory evidence from the report.
• That the date of the so-called “janitor” episode, which Freeh used to condemn the “Penn State Football Culture,” which was supposedly late November of 2000, could apparently not have been witnessed by the now-demented janitor at that time because he did not seemingly start working there until late December of that year.
• That Mike McQueary now has yet another, at times very contradictory, version of his story and has now augmented it to include seemingly important comments from a now-deceased Joe Paterno (which he never mentioned in previous testimonies after the conversations, but before Paterno passed away).
• That the prosecution is so concerned about the real story of Victim 2 that they vigorously prevented their witness Agent Anthony Sassano from even answering whether he knew the identity of that person on two different occasions.

And yet, in the media’s closed mind, this case is already closed and, except for a couple of cherry-picked/out-of-context/alleged statements from Paterno, nothing particularly new or interesting has recently occurred.

As for the preliminary hearing in particular, contrary to highly-predictable media reaction, I actually think that it went about as well as could have been expected for the defense.

Read more

Helen Woodyard PN LTE: Holes in Freeh Report show that PSU should be covered by RTK

Published 30 July 2013, Patriot News

A new revelation illustrates why Penn State needs to be fully subject to the state’s Right to Know law. The Freeh report tells a tale about a janitor who allegedly witnessed Jerry Sandusky abusing a boy on campus. The janitor claimed that he feared for his job if he reported what he saw. This unconfirmed anecdote was a driving force behind Freeh’s negative portrayal of Penn State’s culture; a portrayal that factored heavily into the NCAA sanctions. 

Using Penn State’s payroll records, analyst Ray Blehar recently discovered that the janitor was not yet employed by the university when the alleged incident took place. 

This latest blow to the credibility of Freeh’s investigation raises a fundamental question – if such a basic fact was missed, what other examples of shoddy work by the Freeh team have yet to be discovered? 

It is unclear how Mr. Blehar obtained the payroll records given that such records are currently considered private information. What is clear is that if these records and others were made available to the public, harmful secrets would be much harder to keep and shoddy work would be much easier to detect. 

Given that taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in Penn State, they deserve to know what other mistakes are lurking behind the scenes. Please urge your state senator and representative to make Penn State fully subject to the state’s Right to Know law.

HELEN WOODYARD, Hickory, N.C.

More than just a wrong date in the janitor incident.

The defenders of the current narrative, who don't know much about the Sandusky case, try to dismiss the new evidence as Petrosky getting the date wrong.  He got a lot more wrong than that.

By
Ray Blehar

Recent evidence uncovered in my investigation reveals that janitor James Calhoun may not have been employed at PSU at the time of the incident.  While defenders of the current narrative try to excuse this evidence as simply confusion by the other janitors about the date of the incident, there were many inconsistencies with Ronald Petrosky's testimony.

The Commonwealth stated the incident happened between Nov 20-27, 2000, on a weekend of an away football game.

1) The season ended on Nov 18, 2000.

2) The last away game was Nov 11, 2000.

3) The witness Petrosky testified the team was playing Ohio State (September 23, 2000).

4) The crime scene changed between the grand jury report and the trial.

5) Petrosky said he called the police in March 2011, after reading an article in the CDT about the "grad assistant" witnessing a shower incident. That information wasn't published until November 2011.

6) At the grand jury, Petrosky said he was INSIDE the locker room cleaning when he was approached by the eyewitness, Calhoun.

7) At the trial, Petrosky said he was OUTSIDE the locker room and entered to find Calhoun trembling and shaking

8) At the grand jury, Petrosky said the upper bodies of Sandusky and the child were blocked (not visible).

9) At the trial, Petrosky said he didn't see the upper bodies because he was looking down. Prosecutors stated there were no obstructions in the locker room.

10) Petrosky claimed the Calhoun witnessed the crime after both he and Calhoun had been in the shower room not less than 10 feet away from Sandusky.  This does not fit with Sandusky's pattern of disengaging with victims when others were present.  Both Victim 4 and Victim 1 confirmed that was Sandusky's pattern.

11) The second hearsay witness, Jay Witherite, who testified at the grand jury, did not testify at the trial.  No explanation was provided for his absence, which was required to allow the hearsay testimony of Petrosky (see Commonwealth v. Barnes).

Conclusion:  The janitor incident doesn't hold water, yet Louis Freeh said this:

 “The janitors, that’s the tone on the bottom. Ok. These are the employees of Penn State who clean the locker rooms in the Lasch building where young boys are being raped. They witness, what is probably, in the report, the most horrific rape, that’s described.”

It's time to slam the door on this incident and Louis Freeh.

The Psychology Of The Janitor Incident

The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General constructed a nearly perfect crime for generating outrage and being nearly bullet-proof -- but an obstruction got in the way of that perfection.

By
Ray Blehar

Rarely, do I offer strictly an analysis article, but the Victim 8/Janitor incident was so striking in its brilliance that I felt I could not pass up this opportunity to write about the psychology behind the incident.

Sandusky’s alleged sexual abuse incident in November 2000 , witnessed by janitor James Calhoun, was nearly the perfect crime for generating outrage and for its ability to be nearly impossible to disprove.   

First, crimes against children, the elderly, and the sick/infirmed are viewed as particularly heinous by American society – and this incident had all three.  The alleged incident involved an elderly janitor who witnessed Sandusky performing oral sex on a child and then became so distraught over the incident that he was shaking and trembling.  Despite the fact that he was an adult who watched another adult molest a child and did nothing to stop the abuse, the visual image of an old man trembling and shaking caused the public to perceive him as a “victim” of Sandusky’s crime.  

Thus, it was perceived as a crime with two victims – the young boy and the elderly janitor. 

Next, and just in case that wasn’t enough, the Commonwealth used the fact that James Calhoun now suffers from Alzheimer’s to not only make him a more sympathetic character in this story, but for the reason that it made it nearly impossible (and politically incorrect) for someone to question his story.

Obviously, Mr. Calhoun’s memory is unreliable because he suffers from dementia.  Moreover, if he never mentioned the crime to his family before the onset of Alzheimer’s, they would have no way to learn about the crime.  So, talking to his family to verify the crime would not be a reliable  method to prove or disprove the crime.

In essence, there was almost no way to disprove this crime and also little incentive to do so, considering that anyone who questioned Calhoun’s story would likely be castigated for political incorrectness.

Whoever wrote the script for this crime was truly brilliant in his or her understanding of psychology, but, unfortunately, was not focused on the details and erred when putting an obstruction in the locker room.  Because if Petrosky could not see through the obstruction, neither could Calhoun.

Despite this problem with physical evidence, many were fooled, including Louis Freeh, the media, and especially Patricia Johnson, who fell hard for the story.  She called Calhoun a victim, just as the OAG intended.  She also called him a hero, but for the wrong reason.

"My Heart and Prayers Go Out to Jim Calhoun, a Major Victim in the Sandusky Crime Spree

Posted: Monday, November 07, 2011

by Patricia Johnson
Articles and Answers.com

There has always been a special place in my heart for Veterans, partly due to being brought up to believe how extraordinary the men and woman who fight for our country are, and partly due to interactions through the years with Veterans..... 

In the fall of 2000, our victim, Jim Calhoun, was working as a janitor at Penn State University. Jim, while performing his job duties, witnessed Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky, the defensive coordinator of Penn State’s Division I collegiate football program, performing oral sex on a young boy in the showers of the Lasch Building. Note: Any person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. 

Jim immediately went to other members of the janitorial staff and explained what he had witnessed. 

Employee Ronald Petrosky was also working that evening and it was his job to clean the showers which were empty due to the fact the football players were at an away game. Petrosky could not see who was in the assistant coaches’ shower room, but he heard the sound of running water and could see two pairs of feet. Coach Sandusky and a young boy, between the ages of 11-13, eventually exited the shower with their hair wet. Petrosky then observed the coach holding hands with the boy as they were walking down the long hall leading out of Lasch Building. 

As he was cleaning the shower that Sandusky and the boy had used, Jim Calhoun came up to Petrosky and was noticeably upset and crying. Jim, visibly shaking, told Petrosky he “fought in the [Korean] war….seen people with their guts blowed out, arms dismembered…I just witnessed something in there I’ll never forget.” Jim went on to explain to Petrosky that he saw Sandusky (at the time, he did not know the coach’s name) holding the boy up against the wall and licking on him. 

Witherite observed that Jim was “very emotionally upset” and “distraught” to the point Witherite “was afraid the man was going to have a heart attack or something the way he was acting.” while he was explaining how he had observed Jerry Sandusky performing oral sex on the young boy [that same evening Sandusky was parked in his vehicle in the parking lot and Calhoun was able to point him out to Witherite]. 

Witherite attempted to calm Jim and went on to explain to him who he should contact to report the incident – if he chose to report it. 

No report was ever made by Jim Calhoun – We’ll rephrase that statement and say there is no report on file made by Jim Calhoun. We can’t confirm or deny whether he made a report by talking to Jim Calhoun because this poor man is considered ‘incompetent to testify’. He is currently suffering from dementia and living in a nursing home. 

The identity of the young boy has never been determined. 

How much of Jim Calhoun’s dementia can be attributed to the atrocity he witnessed back in the year 2000? How long can a fragile mind cope with the knowledge that a wrong has been committed by a person in power and know that nothing will be done to protect others from the same thing happening to them? From the few comments he made about his tour in Korea, it’s obvious that Jim Calhoun suffered some degree of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He went to a foreign country to fight for freedom and 45 years later sees a child on U.S. soil being sexually abused by a powerful man. How many years of torment did Jim Calhoun go through before his mind finally snapped? 

The attitude of Penn State towards the despicable acts performed on their campus is readily seen in their willingness to pay the legal fees of Athletic Director Timothy Mark Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Charles Schultz, who were both charged with perjury and failure to report. Schultz’s position includes oversight of Penn State University Police Department. 

When this Veteran’s Day rolls around say a special prayer for Jim Calhoun, the one man that tried to come forward and fight for what’s right. "

  

Closing Thoughts

James Calhoun is indeed a hero.  He was a Private First Class in the U.S. Army, Light Duty Infantry, who was seriously wounded in a rocket attack during the Korean War in November 1951.  He eventually returned to duty.  Today, he lives in a nursing home near Lock Haven.

The records show Calhoun may not have been employed by PSU at the time the Commonwealth alleges the crime occurred. Therefore,  the most despicable act in the Victim 8 incident is the Commonwealth's use of James Calhoun, because he suffered from dementia, as a "patsy" for witnessing a crime that didn't happen.