Monday, July 30



The Men who Covered-up for Jerry Sandusky
By Victor Thorn
Why did so many individuals cover-up for serial pedophile Jerry Sandusky, including those within The Second Mile (TSM), the DPW and CYS, and  the Pennsylvania State Attorney General’s office? With recent revelations by Philadelphia school police officer Greg Bucceroni that a pedophile network operated out of TSM, consider these other factors:

Sunday, July 29

TSM, CYS and DPW - Failed the Victims of Sandusky

by Barry Bozeman and Ray Blehar 
Part of the SMSSS series exposing who let Sandusky roam Freeh *pun intended for 14 years. 
Three entities CYS, DPW and TSM all staffed with professionals trained for recognizing child sexual abuse were aware of the Jerry Sandusky showers in 1998. None of those three were Penn State University. The public outcry following Attorney General Linda Kelly's Grand Jury Presentment, press release, and press conference focused on Penn State and Joe Paterno. But where is the outrage against these organizations who's reason for existence is based on protecting children? 
Centre County Child and Youth Services - CYS, the PA Department of Public Welfare - DPW and The Second Mile charity - TSM are staffed with professionals who have expertise and responsibility in cases of child abuse. Yet all three of these organizations failed the victims of Jerry Sandusky while the public condemns an elderly football coach and 3 PSU administrators? Where is the logic, reason, or justice in that? And who allowed or made that to happen? 
We know from the Freeh Report that psychologist Dr. Alycia Chambers was contacted by the mother of victim 6 to determine if the she was overreacting to the shower and bear hug experienced by her son in May, 1998 Freeh Report page 42 and 43

May 4-6, Police Report, Initial Investigation and Psychological Evaluation
On May 4, Victim 6's mother called Alycia Chambers, a licensed psychologist who had been working with her son, to see if she was overreacting to Sandusky’s showering with her son. The boy told Schreffler what happened with Sandusky the previous evening, and added that a 10-year-old friend of his had been in a shower with Jerry on another occasion where Sandusky similarly squeezed the friend. 
Note that Dr Chambers uncovered a second victim of a Sandusky shower right then as is confirmed by the police report produced by Detective Ronald Schreffler 
On May 7, Chambers provided a copy of her written report to Det. Schreffler. Chambers said she was pleased with the response ot the agencies involved, as the gravity of the incidents seems to be well appreciated.
This documentation confirms that the CYS and police knew of at least two bear hug showers with 2 separate boys and Jerry Sandusky. At this point someone made the determination that CYS had conflicts of interest since they did evaluations for The Second Mile (Freeh p 43)
Detective Schreffler contacted John Miller, a caseworker with Centre County Children & Youth Services (CYS) about the allegation. However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case. CYS had contracts with the Second Mile - including placement of children in 2M residential program & the Second Mile CEO Raykovitz had a contract with CYS to conduct evaluations. The referral sheet from psychologist Chambers indicated the case might involve a CYS foster child. In light of these conflicts, the Dept of Public Welfare (DPW) took over the case on May 5. DPW officials in Harrisburg, PA took the lead because of Sandusky's high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro replacing John Miller.
So Detective Schreffler, John Miller of CYS and Dr. Chambers all three know of both boys by early May in 1998 when someone has DPW in the person of Jerry Lauro take over the investigation. Lauro interviews victim 6's mother but he claims he was never made aware of Dr. Chambers evaluation? The mother of victim 6 relied on Dr. Chamber's evaluation and her call to CYS but she never mentions this to Lauro? How curious. What else would she have to say to investigator Lauro? 
Also on May 7, Lauro interviewed the boy's mother. According to Schreffler's notes, Lauro had received copies of the boy's recorded statement, yet Lauro advised the Special Investigative Counsel that he did not have full access to the facts of the case and was unaware of psychologist Chambers’ evaluation.
Are we to believe that nobody told DPW that two boys were subjected to this behavior or that Dr. Chambers was the person who made the initial report to CYS? At this point District Attorney Karen Arnold becomes involved as the prosecutor handling the case.
Schreffler had a discussion with Karen Arnold, Centre County prosecutor in the District Attorney's office, that day as well. Arnold told Schreffer to postpone a second psychological evaluation of the boy until an additional investigation could be completed. Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, as part of DPW’s investigation.
So now we have Dr. Chambers, Detective Schreffler, John Miller of CYS, Victim 6's mother, and DA Arnold and Jerry Lauro of DPW who should certainly know that Jerry Sandusky has been bear hugging at least 2 boys in the showers and that Dr. Chambers has determined this behavior to that of a pedophile.. 

At this point someone authorizes CYS counselor, John Seasock, who has worked for The Second Mile to interview victim 6. An odd thing since CYS was removed from the case due to a conflict of interest and even more strange is that his evaluation that is completely in error, as we know from the results of the Sandusky trial. 
Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, as part of DPW’s investigation. Counselor John Seasock,opined that "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children." Seasock’s report ruled out that the boy "had been placed in a situation where he was being ‘groomed for future sexual victimization.*
How convenient for TSM - counselor Seasock who worked with TSM and CYS says Sandusky does not exhibit pedophile behavior in direct contradiction of Dr. Chambers and her colleagues.

The "supervisor" who on May 8th went around the instructions of DA Karen Arnold must be found and questioned - who got to that supervisor and got the Seasock whitewash to go forward SEE 11:55 in the Police Report below. 

Is it not then reasonable to assume that TSM would become aware of the investigation at that point? Two Second Mile children are involved along with a Second Mile mother and the counselor they used for evaluations along with the CYS to whom TSM is closely tied. 
State College is a rather small town and here we have the intimately related CYS and TSM with their evaluator John Seasock, John Miller of CYS, and Jerry Lauro of DPW. It seems highly unlikely that an investigation involving TSM boys and the TSM founder would not reach the ears of TSM CEO and Child Psychologist Dr. Jack Raykovitz.
People are willing to leap to the conclusion that Joe Paterno and PSU administrators had to know about the 1998 investigation. But those men were not child psychology experts and they did not deal with CYS or DPW. But  Dr. Raykovitz and TSM were dependent on Jerry Sandusky and they dealt with CYS on a regular basis while this situation involves two boys enrolled in their program. 
Doctor Chambers and her colleagues determined correctly that the behavior described by victim 6 and his 10 year old friend fit the description of grooming. click and read this.  
Chambers made a report to the PA child abuse line and consulted with colleagues. Her colleagues agreed that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a loving, special relationship
For certain Detective Schreffler, John Miller of CYS, the mother of Victim 6 and Dr Chambers and her colleagues knew of this report and both victims. But DPW investigator Lauro claims he did not know? Lauro accepts the terribly wrong evaluation of John Seasock and advises DA Ray Gricar who took over from his assistant DA Arnold to close the case allowing Sandusky to remain at large to harm more children. To conclude that this is some kind of colossal mistake seems highly unlikely. 
So why wasn't Lauro informed by the mother of victim 6 about Dr. Chambers evaluation that resulted in the compliant to CYS?
Why did Gricar take over a case that was going to be closed from his Asst DA Arnold who knew of the Chambers evaluation and tried to stop the Seasock evaluation? 
and more importantly as we follow the money:
Who would be hurt the worst if Jerry Sandusky was labeled a potential or likely pedophile in 1998? PSU or The Second Mile? 
To answer that last question look at the facts. 
1 Sandusky was told in Jan prior to the investigation that he would never be head coach
2) He was already considering taking a retirement package that was being negotiated prior, during and after the investigation. 
3) Being labeled a potential pedophile would not be that damaging to Penn State. He was already on his way out. 
4) But The Second Mile was founded by Sandusky and he was their major fundraiser and their connection to Penn State. 
ANSWER: The Second Mile would be devastated by any indication that the charity was founded by a pedophile as a hunting ground for victims. Penn State might get a minor dose of negative publicity but the charges in 1998 would be the lesser charges of misdemeanor indecent assault, endangering, and corruption of a minor. With these two boys at least it would only be the shower contact.  
It is inconceivable that investigator Lauro never contacted TSM during the 1998 investigation. He knew that 2 children acquired their relationship with Jerry Sandusky at TSM. The first step of any reasonably competent investigator would be to see if TSM could provide a list of other boys who were being similarly treated to favors by the founder. And who better to ask than a Doctor of Psychology who was CEO of TSM?
Is the reason Lauro or Schreffler would not make inquiries at TSM  that they were actually steering the investigation away from that organization?
Surely the professional community in Central Pennsylvania of persons who are involved with child sexual abuse cannot be that large. Dr. Chambers and her colleagues were in State College along with TSM and CYS with counselor Seasock. 
TSM may be up to their necks in this but we will likely never know everything they knew. The organizations assets and likely all their files and computers have been taken by Arrow Ministries of Houston headed by a Republican who hails from central Pennsylvania and is close personally with the Governor and other prominent PA political figures. Arrow Foundation Ministry  and  Arrow to take over Second Mile  see second item down the list. 
But what we do know about TSM is substantial and it raises very serious questions leading us further down the path in our effort to expose how Penn State University and Joe Paterno were framed by the Grand Jury Presentment and the Freeh Report as responsible for the crimes of Jerry Sandusky while the agencies who were charged with the protection of children have gotten off scott-Freeh.
Where is the media concern and outrage over abused children pointed at these organizations that had every clue and reason to stop Jerry Sandusky in 1998? It may not be as flashy as blaming an old football coach but somebody had the power to derail this 1998 investigation. Even if that cannot be proved it would be of far more benefit to the victims of child abuse to get to the root of the failure of the agencies tasked with their protection. 
The following news articles in a TSM Appendix offer evidence of TSM's involvement with Jerry Sandusky and possible reasons TSM was not mentioned in the Presentment and prosecution. This article continues at the Appendix Link with great detail about TSM and Dr. Raykovitz.

Want to help this effort to set the record straight ?
Visit this LINK and Volunteer 

Click on the line above and we will answer any comment we can. An interesting discussion is developing in the forum. Please join us.

Friday, July 27

Who Saved Sandusky in 1998? Part I

From Ray Blehar & Barry Bozeman - Exclusive from The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal
The first of a series in which SMSSS will expose who let Sandusky roam Freeh (pun intended) for 14 years.
Freeh’s mission, provided to him by the BOT, was to find of what PSU officials did wrong. That bias resulted in Freeh missing key evidence that shows DPW wanted to shut down the 1998 Sandusky investigation quickly.

The Freeh Report, Joe Paterno and NCAA Sanctions Part One: 1998

A Great Minds Think Alike Coincidence? Walter Uhler's latest offering is also concerns 1998 in detail.
I obviously kid about the "great minds" thing. or do I? 
Given that it was the Freeh Report that provoked both the rash and unconscionably harsh sanctions imposed by the NCAA upon Penn State and the cowardly willingness of the Penn State President and the Board of Trustees to swallow them, I believe it’s time for somebody to conduct a thorough examination of the report, if only to assure that the report’s scathing criticism of Penn State’s response to the 1998 investigation is justified and that its evidence of a cover-up by Penn State in 2001 actually supports the report’s conclusion of a cover-up at Penn State.

Corbett "ex-PSU officials under investigation" but Who is Investigating Corbett?

Tom Corbett continues his absurd cover up farce in the face of massive evidence showing the Freeh Report to be a fact Freeh fictitious fraud. 
The real cover up is rapidly coming apart Corbett. Is it you who framed Joe Paterno to detract from your malfeasance and lies? 

HARRISBURG - Former top officials at Pennsylvania State University did not fully cooperate with state investigators in the Jerry Sandusky case, Gov. Corbett said Thursday, and are likely now the focus of an investigation by the state Attorney General's Office.
The governor, who as attorney general launched the child sexual-abuse investigation into Sandusky in 2009, said investigators had subpoenaed e-mails of top university officials, but did not receive critical exchanges until after Sandusky was charged last fall.Those e-mails came to light last week in a report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who was hired by Penn State to assess the university's handling of the matter.
Please get us a trial on the absurdity of linking anyone to a cover-up based on those emails. 
and this: Who is the Liar? Paterno or Freeh to learn who are the culprits
and this 1998: So Close to an End for Sandusky - to begin to see the clues. 




Alumni watchdog organization cites a failure to obtain facts from critical individuals, coupled with conclusions drawn without sufficient basis in fact.

JULY 26, 2012 ---- On the heels of the University’s acceptance of unprecedented NCAA sanctions, members of Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) express serious concern as to why the University – and the NCAA – could rely upon an incomplete and insufficient report as the basis for their decisions, and warn that exploration of legal recourse is underway in full force. 

SMSSS Co-author Ray Blehar on the GOON SHOW

UPDATE: Ray will be on with Kevin Slaten at 5:20pm -
HERE'S RAY ON THE GOON SHOW - 2ND HOUR of the top recording

In the second hour of the show, Ray Blehar, discusses the Freeh report’s inconsistencies as they relate to the sanctions, and his efforts going forward to clear Penn State and show how The Freeh report is wrong, and the NCAA was wrong to rely on it. Really interesting stuff. Ray’s articles are posted here
Ray Blehar will be on the Goon Show on Thursday night from 6:20PM to 7:00PM.
He will be talking about the Freeh Report's overstatement and misuse of evidence regarding the 1998 and 2001 incidents of the Sandusky Scandal.
It is a streamed broadcast on the internet at THIS LINK - THE GOON SHOW 

While we are on the subject of radio DMJ599 offered these links to some Kevin Slaten interviews concerning the Sandusky Scandal
Here they are for your listening pleasure Kevin Slaten/Anthony Lugano PSU BOT new member
Just listened to this Lubrano interview - this is quite good Kevin Slaten/Sara Lampe 
Missouri St Legislature. on her ill-informed comments toward Coach Pinkel of Missouri
It even gets better toward the end. Ms Lampe ends up looking very foolish. Kevin Slaten/NCAA Kevin Slated/KC Star Opinion
Let us know what you think about these interviews and Ray's performance on Thursday evening. 

Excellent Work by Powerline's Paul Mirengoff


Featured imageI haven’t followed the Penn State child molestation scandal closely. My interest in sports is an interest in sports, not investigations of crimes by people involved (or formerly involved) with sports. Nonetheless, I am aware that a consensus exists that former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno acted improperly in connection with Penn State’s response to allegations of child molestation committed by one-time assistant coach Jerry Sandusky

Thursday, July 26

Governor Tom Corbett

Chris Friend of the Friendly Fire Zone is questioning the actions of Gov Tom Corbett with great effect.

Exposing the Hypocrisy of Tom Corbett

the SMSSS website commends CASABLANCA PA for their work exposing the hypocrisy of Tom Corbett in the Sandusky  Scandal

No "LIKE" Button for This - for example
By Luck or Design - are both worth your time.

Good stuff Casablanca - keep it coming

Penn State counsel’s role in Sandusky inquiry called into question

July 25, 2012|By Jeremy Roebuck, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Three top Pennsylvania State University administrators were each posed a question from prosecutors when they testified separately last year before the grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky:

Do you have counsel with you today?
Then-university president Graham B. Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, and vice president Gary Schultz each offered the same answer: Yes, Cynthia Baldwin, the university's general counsel.
But Baldwin has since maintained that she represented none of them and instead sat in on the proceedings on behalf of the university.

Wednesday, July 25

In Defense of Joe Paterno

July 24, 2012|By David C. Harrison

Louis Freeh's report on Penn State's response to Jerry Sandusky's crimes against children has now led to serious NCAA sanctions and the removal of a monument to coach Joe Paterno. The report alleges a cover-up by the quartet of former university president Graham B. Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Paterno.
But the report itself shows the key decisions were made by only three of them. There is almost no evidence that they consulted substantially with Paterno.

Tuesday, July 24

Important Information MISSING from Freeh Report

When reading something like the Freeh Report, it's easy to evaluate what's there. However, what sets an average analyst apart from a very good analyst is determining what's not there.....
The Freeh Report correctly reports several times that Gary Schultz, Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, and Joe Paterno did not report Sandusky to the authorities. In these reports, Freeh states that the authority to be contacted is the Department of Child Welfare.
So, what is missing?

NCAA will never be Freeh from Contempt for Today

This is just a beginning to get this started against the wrong-headed sanctimonious statement's of Emmert at the NCAA Press Conference and the unconscionable penalties based on FREEH

I know of no better words to describe the insanity of the NCAA's press conference today. They based their decision on the Freeh Report? Are they complete IDIOTS?
"The Freeh Report is dishonest, in many ways incomprehensibly incompetent, and had an agenda to fit a preconceived idea. It was going to fill that agenda even if it meant doing it not just with distortions but out and out fabrications." Marc Rubin  
Ray Blehar - 2008 Honors MBA Graduate "In responding the the Freeh Report, PSU  must call out the flaws in the report , the inaccuracies of Mr. Freeh's press conference comments, ...... the report, while containing some facts, is certainly not a full accounting of the facts. The Freeh report also takes liberties with hearsay evidence provided by witnesses and treats the hearsay as if it were direct quotes. Finally, Mr.Freeh assigns motives and feelings to theofficials involved in the 1998 and 2001 incidents without ever interviewing those officials"  

Marc Rubin of Tom In Paine:  A dishonest bureaucratic authority (Freeh) disseminating propaganda and outright lies to fit a preconceived idea, offering unchallenged "evidence" that wouldn't last a minute in a court room, an incompetent, spineless press, spreading and repeating the lies without bothering to see what is true and what isn't and not caring, and a mindless mob who wont think for themselves who swallow it and then, torches lit, go on their midnight rampage. The comments by the university president as to why the statue was taken down are worse than the statue being taken down
 In 1998 CYS is replaced by DPW in the Victim 6 investigation and in the process A.Chambers damning psychological evaluation is hidden from DPW investigator Lauro. Instead a CYS counselor who worked with The Second Mile gives a "pedophile free" evaluation over the objection of DA Arnold to Lauro who advises Gricar to close the case. Sandusky goes undiscovered. Sounds downright Machiavellian but the Freeh Report reveals that's what happened. Ironic isn't it? Freeh could have actually cleared Joe and PSU and discovered the real reason that Sandusky was not found out in 1998? 
Part One: The Philadelphia Inquirer Mangles the Flawed Freeh ReportWhat do you do when reporters from a major metropolitan daily newspaper—in this case, The Philadelphia Inquirer—demonstrate that they are completely incapable of reading a published report—in this case The Freeh Report—and providing their readers with a coherent summary of its contents? What do you do when the egregious misreading of that report by these reporters presents its readers a very false picture of how officials at Penn State handled Mike McQueary’s allegations of child molestation by Jerry Sandusky in February 2001? Perhaps you would recommend that the Philadelphia Inquirer receive the “death penalty” and not be permitted to publish its sludge for a full year! 
MUCH MORE TO COME ON THIS WEBSITE about this travesty.  

Monday, July 23

Who is the liar? Joe Paterno or Louis Freeh?

From Ray Blehar: about the author

Louis Freeh swung the media lap dogs and the court of public opinion to believe that Joe Paterno is a liar.  The Penn State Board of Trustees didn’t protest the “facts” provided by Louis Freeh, and, as a result the NCAA used the Freeh Report to levy some serious penalties against the Penn State football program. 
But should you believe Louis Freeh?

Well, let’s examine who said what and rate the level of truthfulness using the scale below:
True – Mostly True – Half True- Mostly False – False – Pants on Fire

Joe Paterno
Let’s start with Joe’s biggest “lie” that caused the vacating of his wins since 1998, that he was not aware of allegations of sexual abuse against Sandusky in 1998. At the January 2011 Grand Jury, Paterno was asked:  “Other than the [incident] that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge, or any other fashion, of any inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys.” (My emphasis added)

Paterno:  “I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no.  I do not know of it.  You did mention – I think you said something about a rumor.  It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody.  I don’t know.  I don’t remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.”

Analysis: Joe Paterno is asked a very specific question about inappropriate sexual conduct about Sandusky that he answers negatively.    Let’s examine the evidence: From Exhibits in the Freeh Report 

Exhibits 2H and 2I are handwritten notes of Gary Schultz that contain details of what happened in the shower.  Freeh states he does not know who was present at this meeting.
Exhibit 2A, an e-mail  exchange titled “Re: Joe Paterno”  between Curley and Schultz, reveals Curley has “touched base with the coach” and that “Public Welfare” will interview the individual.
Exhibit 2B, an e-mail series Titled "Re Jerry"  between Curley and Schultz discuss DPW plans to interview the children and Jerry, however they contain no details about the allegations.
Exhibit 2C reflects Tim Curley asking Schultz for updates, with Curley stating “Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”  No updates are provided to Curley in this exchange.
Exhibit 2E, from Schultz to Curley, copying Spanier, states that no crime was committed and that Jerry was concerned about how the investigation affected the child.  The e-mail does not state what the investigation entailed.    The Freeh Report states the “record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was revealed to Paterno” (page 51).

Conclusion:  There is no direct evidence that Paterno (or Curley and Spanier, for that matter) were ever told the details of the investigation.  Considering that investigations of sex crimes involving juvenile victims are typically conducted in a confidential manner, it is very likely that the details of this investigation stopped with Gary Schultz and were not provided to Curley, Spanier, and Paterno.

The Verdict:  True

The second “lie” told by Paterno is that he was not involved in the follow-up or decisions involving the 2001 incident.  It is based this statement from the Sally Jenkins, Washington Post interview when he was asked why he didn’t follow-up  more aggressively after reporting this incident to his boss, Tim Curley.
Paterno: “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was,” he said. “So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”

Analysis:  Exhibit 5G is an e-mail chain between Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, and Tim Curley, discussing the actions to be taken in response to the 2001 incident.  Within the e-mail, on 27 February 2001, Tim Curley states, “After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” The inference is that Paterno stepped in and changed the course of action on February 26th.  The Freeh Report identifies a total of five meetings between Schultz, Curley, and Spanier concerning the incident and none of the meetings involved Joe Paterno. The report also includes e-mails or references to e-mails from February 12, 22, 26, 27, and 28 none of which included Joe Paterno as an addressee or a courtesy copy.

Conclusion:   There are ten instances where PSU officials were deliberating about the actions to be taken regarding the 2001 incident and among those incidents there is only one reference to Paterno. Freeh does not know the extent of the conversation – whether it was 10 minutes of 10 seconds long – and he doesn’t know what either Paterno or Curley said.   However, the overwhelming evidence in the Freeh Report shows that Paterno was rarely consulted about the 2001 incident.

The Verdict:  Mostly True

Joe Paterno Results:  1 True, 1 Mostly True

Louis Freeh
Mr. Freeh’s report and press conference comments have been taken as the gospel by the media, the public, and the PSU administration.  Let’s see how some of his statements they hold up under examination.

Freeh:  “The most powerful leaders and the University – Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the University’s Board of Trustees, the Penn State Community, and the public at large.”

Analysis:   While it is a fact that top PSU officials did not report the 2001 incident from the parties mentioned above, this is the only incident of Sandusky’s child abuse of which they were aware.  The 1998 investigation, conducted by the police, DPW, and CYS concluded there was no child abuse, thus PSU officials had nothing to report to the BOT and fully worked with the authorities.

Conclusion: There was nothing to report in 1998; therefore officials did not repeatedly conceal information.

The Verdict:  Half-Truth

Other statements that would fall under the category of Half-Truth for similar reasoning are:

Freeh: “The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.”  (from Press Conference) “By not promptly reporting and fully advising the BOT about the 1998 and 2001 child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky…” (from page 15 of the report).
“The Board also failed in its duties to oversee the President and senior university officials in 1998 (page 15).

Freeh: “The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely…”

Analysis:  Exhibit 2A, an e-mail  exchange of May 5 and 6, titled “Re: Joe Paterno”  between Curley and Schultz, reveals Curley has “touched base with the coach” and that “Public Welfare” will interview the individual.
Exhibit 2C and e-mail titled "Re: Jerry", reflects Tim Curley asking Schultz for updates, with Curley stating “Coach is anxious to know where it stands” on 5/13/2998.   There is no evidence of Joe Paterno receiving a single update.   The Freeh Report states the “record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was revealed to Paterno” (page 51).

Conclusion:  While Paterno was informed of an investigation, it is impossible – based on the evidence - to conclude he ever received an update or was advised of the outcome.  He did not follow the investigation closely.

Verdict:  2 Pants on Fire

Other statements made by Freeh that fall under the category of Pants on Fire for similar reasons are:
Freeh: “Spanier….Paterno…were kept informed of the investigation.”  (page 39).
Freeh:  “Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.” (from the press conference)

Analysis:   It is true that on February 26th, Tim Curley had a discussion with Joe Paterno and on February 27th, Curley had changed his mind.   However, it is notable that Mr. Freeh’s statement ignores evidence that shows Curley and Schultz considered reporting the incident to DPW as an optional requirement as early as February 12 (page63)   Freeh also ignores the statements of Graham Spanier to the Special Investigative Counsel that he met only with Curley on February 25 and Spanier denied that they discussed reporting to DPW (page 73).  Freeh also ignores the fact that the Pennsylvania child abuse reporting law in 2002 did not require PSU to make a report to DPW, because Penn State was not in the care of the child in any official capacity.

Conclusion:  It is unclear whether Curley, Schultz, and Spanier ever reached agreement to report the incident to DPW. While Schultz promoted the reporting to DPW, there is no evidence to suggest that Curley and Spanier agreed with that course of action. It is unfortunate that we do not know the advice given by the PSU counsel at the time of this decision; however the reporting law at the time clearly shows that Penn State officials met their legal obligations when they reported the incident to Second Mile.

The Verdict:  Mostly false.

Louis Freeh Results:  Four Half-Truths, two Pants on Fire, and one Mostly False

In summary, Louis Freeh was clearly more untruthful than Joe Paterno when recounting the details of the 1998 and 2001 incidents. The Penn State officials who accepted Freeh’s statements as facts have done a great disservice to the Penn State University and its alumni and to the Paterno family.

Editor's Comment: This analysis clearly shows how absurdly thin any evidence is that supports any of the horridly damaging claims made by Louis Freeh about Joe Paterno. Freeh stretched the bounds of any sane evaluation of a few notes and emails to make wild and outrageous statements in his summary and press conference concerning the culpability of Coach Paterno in any decision making capacity in 1998. Joe's only decision in 2001 was the right decision. He passed Mike McQueary and whatever allegations he made to the people who were responsible for dealing with those allegations. Any failure of their's is not his.

By the standards set by Mr. Freeh in destroying Joe Paterno's legacy and leading the NCAA to destroy Penn State Football, Mr. Freeh should immediately lose all credibility and be fined and imprisoned for slander and libel without the benefit of a trial that Joe Paterno will never have.

The Freeh Report is costing Penn State University and the people of State College a small fortune and the incredible thing is the Board of Trustees actually paid for these half-truth's and bald faced lies. I hope they think they got their money's worth.

Louis Freeh is a complete disaster for Penn State University and far less honorable and truthful than the man who's reputation and legacy he has helped to destroy.  Barry Bozeman

Want to help this effort to set the record straight 
Visit this LINK and Volunteer 

Sunday, July 22

New on Tom in Paine - Demolishing the Freeh Report

Demolishing The Freeh Report and everyone who believed it one dishonest premise at a time.

The biggest reason for writing more about the Freeh Report is, like the news media and politicians on both sides I've written about in the past, the Freeh Report is dishonest, in many ways incomprehensibly incompetent, and had an agenda to fit a preconceived idea and it was going to fill that agenda even if it meant doing it not just with distortions but out and out fabrications. And the reaction of the mob and the press who swallowed it uncritically and without investigation, who accepted its conclusions blindly, is important because the Freeh Report itself, the reactions of the press and the people who believed it is in microcosm, everything that has gone wrong with the country and why the country as a whole is in the trouble its in in terms of politics and policies that aren't working.  READ THE REST CLICK HERE

Sandusky Scandal Tied to Philly Pedophile Network

The point of this is to return to investigation that will hopefully expose whoever was responsible for the switch from CYS to DPW and whoever arranged for Seasock's evaluation and its substitution for the one by Dr. Chambers. SEE 1998 So Close to an End for Sandusky  That could not be Joe Paterno or Tim Curley/Gary Schultz.

The idea should be to expose and excise the entire cancer - not to scapegoat a dying football coach as a distraction from people in power - not the Penn State administration or football program.


Victor Thorn

On Nov. 11, 2011 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania radio talk show host Mark Madden dropped a bombshell during an appearance on Boston’s WEEI when he told radio talk show hosts John Dennis and Gerry Callahan, “I hear there’s a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the The Second Mile (TSM)—and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross—that Jerry Sandusky and the Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors.”

Good OP ED in on Penn Live

In defense of Joe Paterno

"I’d be naive to think people care much about facts when there’s a good hanging to be had."
Click on title above to read the entire article 

Saturday, July 21

Thursday, July 19

A Letter to Dr. Erickson from Ray Blehar Penn State Honors Graduate Smeal MBA Class of 2008

Mr Blehar -  went back to PSU after 23 years in the US Government.  His background includes roles as a deputy inspector general, chief of financial management control, deputy director for quality, and volunteer work as an examiner for the U.S. Senate Productivity and Maryland Quality Awards program. He has written and evaluated many reports in his career.  
Ray wrote to me and agreed to become a contributor to the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal website so we can all look forward to his contributions as time passes 
I'm enclosing an e-mail I wrote to the President of Penn State in hopes they will take on some of these points when they address the Freeh Report.   I had success with them when I wrote them in the immediate aftermath of the scandal.  You will see some familiar themes in the e-mail.  I hope the PSU President grows some balls and takes on Freeh.
Ray has asked me to post his letter to Dr. Erickson here and on BSD. I hope you find his letter as informative and challenging to the President and BOT as I do. 
Dear President Erickson,
Your message of July 18th in response to the Freeh Report put forth some of the future realities for Penn State:
1) This is not the end of the process, nor will it be the end of a number of investigations or inquiries into the University;
2) Time to heal. Time to comprehend. Time to trust. Time to transform. Time to regain what has been lost, and time to move forward; and
3) The world is watching and they are anxious for expedient responses.
It is how PSU prepares for these realities that is going to count most. We have now undergone two media feeding frenzies, the first in November of 2011 and the second in response to the Freeh Report. In both cases, PSU was unprepared with a statement of its own that could slow down or stop the media narrative, let alone get control of the narrative. In the first instance, the Penn State Board of Trustees (BOT) did the worst thing possible, and made statements that confirmed the media's narrative that PSU is a football factory that vested its power in one person (Joe Paterno). This admission remains an affront to PSU alumni, who are proud of PSU because of the quality of its academics and the education we received, its #1 ranking for corporate recruiting by the Wall Street Journal, its great fund raising efforts for THON and outreach to Special Olympics, and in the outstanding graduation rates of its student athletes. Under the intense pressure of the media, the BOT completely ignored these facts and did not defend our fine university against a false narrative provided by the media and readily consumed by the public.
I have read that you are preparing a response to the Freeh Report. As you prepare the response, I ask that you think about what you are going to say as the media will report it. Those things will be reported in fifteen second sound bites and in the news crawlers that run across the bottom of our television screens. The message must be clear, it must be strong, and it must help us regain what we have lost. 
In responding the the Freeh Report, PSU should show respect for the victims and give credence to the administrative recommendations offered by the Freeh Report, it also must call out the flaws in the report , the inaccuracies of Mr. Freeh's press conference comments, and that the report, while containing some facts, is certainly not a full accounting of the facts. The Freeh report also takes liberties with hearsay evidence provided by witnesses and treats the hearsay as if it were direct quotes. Finally, Mr. Freeh assigns motives and feelings to the officials involved in the 1998 and 2001 incidents without ever interviewing those officials. Without the testimony of Curley, Schultz, Spanier, police chief Harmon, and others, this report is incomplete.
I humbly submit the following talking points for inclusion in your response to the Freeh Report.
1. The Freeh Report provided clear evidence that the Penn State BOT failed to perform its oversight role and vested to much decision making authority with the President. In the critical time between the announcement of the grand jury proceedings of the Sandusky Scandal and the release of the grand jury presentment, the PSU BOT failed to ask the right questions and as a result, PSU was not prepared to address the many allegations in the report, and particularly the false allegation of a rape occurring on our campus. The damage caused to PSU by that single false allegation is immeasurable and, unfortunately, Mr. Freeh joined in doing more damage when he made the misstatement that "the rapes of these boys occurred in the Lasch Building" during his press conference.
2. Mr. Freeh stated that PSU officials failed to take any action to in the Sandusky case to avoid bad publicity. We do not believe the evidence gathered supports this claim, as it is soley based on hearsay from the attorney of Second Mile. In this instance the Second Mile attorney is relaying information from a discussion he had with the Second Mile CEO, who stated that Tim Curley told him to avoid publicity. Quite frankly, this is a case of double hearsay. And it is also incredible that it never dawned on Mr. Freeh that Second Mile failed to report this incident because it was avoiding bad publicity to preserve its own livlihood.
3. Mr. Freeh states that Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz had knowledge of a 1998 investigation involving sexual misconduct by Jerry Sandusky is not supported by the evidence. Mr. Freeh produced hand written notes by Gary Schultz that relate to the investigation, but Mr. Freeh states he cannot determine who was present when these notes were taken or if the information was shared. There is no direct evidence of Mr. Curley, Mr. Paterno, or Dr. Spanier ever being informed of the details of the 1998 investigation. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Paterno followed this investigation closely or received updates, as Mr. Freeh stated. The report stated that it could not find any evidence to confirm that Mr. Paterno was ever informed of the conclusion of the investigation. The report also could not produce evidence that Mr. Paterno got a single update. Dr. Spanier stated he remembers the incident as a "vague reference with no individual mentioned." What Mr. Freeh has done amounts to throwing unrelated documents and evidence into a box, then stating the evidence is related because it is in the same box.
What is truly incredible about this concoction devised by Mr. Freeh is that as a former law enforcement official, he should be aware that crimes involving juvenile victims are conducted in a confidential manner. Given this scenario, it is more likely that the information stopped with Gary Schultz and was not shared with other PSU officials. This is perfectly consistent with the statements of Detective Schreffler, who stated that "Old Main" did not get involved in this investigation. And it would be perfectly consistent with Spanier's lack of recall. And it would be perfectly consistent with the absence of details in the e-mails from Harmon to Schultz that were relayed to Curley. And it would be consistent with the grand jury testimony of Joe Paterno, who stated he was not aware of any allegations of sexual abuse against Jerry Sandusky prior to 2001.
4. Mr. Freeh downplays the significance of Tim Curley informing Second Mile that Jerry Sandusky showered with a boy. Mr. Freeh obviously did not familiarize himself with the qualifications of the former Second Mile CEO, who is a licensed PhD in psychology and an individual who should have had a heightened sense of awareness for child abuse -- not only because of his profession but because he is the director of a children's charity. I also feel it is necessary to remind everyone of this fact -- Jerry Sandusky worked for Second Mile in 2001. He was not a PSU employee. Under the Pennsylvania child abuse reporting statutes, the employer who receives a report of abuse involving children under their care are mandated to report it to the authorities. Let the record state that a Penn State official reported an incident of suspected child abuse of a child in the care of Jerry Sandusky - a Second Mile employee who mentored children - to the CEO of Second Mile, who had a responsibility to report this abuse to authorities.
5. Freeh states: "Many, many witnesses we spoke to described Paterno as one the most powerful leaders on campus," Freeh said. "He could have stopped it."
Repeating what people believe to be true and what is the truth are two different things. Freeh provides no evidence (other than opinion) that demonstrates Joe Paterno was in a position of power - or had a leading role - in the decisions regarding Sandusky's actions in 1998 and 2001 or in Sandusky's retirement. a) Freeh references a number of meetings and discussions between Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, yet it is mind-boggling that the most powerful man on campus is not invited to the meetings nor can Freeh provide any credible evidence that Paterno played a role in the decision-making process. b) The report provided contradictory evidence to Paterno's power on campus when it reports that Detective Schreffler received no interference from the administration in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky. Wouldn't it make sense that Detective Schreffler and the police force would have immediately informed Paterno of the outcome of the investigation, given his importance on campus? Yet, Freeh cannot even uncover a piece of evidence indicated Paterno was informed of the outcome. c) The Freeh Report produces scant evidence - in the form of handwritten margin notes - that Paterno had a role in determining Sandusky's retirement package. In fact, the evidence - in the form of correspondence - clearly shows that "one of the most powerful" men on campus was rarely consulted during the negotiations of the retirement of his top assistant coach. d) The Freeh Report ignores the Washington Post interview (used in another instance to imply Paterno was untruthful about 1998) where Joe Paterno describes himself as "in a dilemma" about Sandusky because he was no longer Jerry's boss. While this interview was conducted long after the 2001 incident, it provides information that provides how Joe viewed his role in decision making outside of the football program.
6. Regarding the aftermath of the 1998 incidence, Freeh states: "Nothing in the record indicates that Curley and Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky."
This suggested course of action only makes sense if PSU officials have a crystal ball and can see the future. Unfortunately, the future is not known and the decision about Sandusky's access to facilities was based on: a) in 1999, Sandusky was fully employed by PSU as the Defensive Coordinator of the football team and needed access to facilities to perform his job; b) that Sandusky was not charged with a crime and that the Department of Welfare's investigation concluded in that child abuse was unfounded; c) up until that incident, PSU had no reason to believe that Sandusky's interactions with children were anything but altruistic; and d) that providing the Second Mile children with access to the PSU football facilities and football team provided many with a positive influence on their lives.
7. The Freeh report condemns PSU for allowing "Sandusky to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child predator, as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy..."
At the time of Sandusky's retirement, PSU officials were aware of one unfounded allegation of child abuse against Sandusky. The suggestion that they would somehow change his retirement package and access based unfounded allegation of child abuse, weighed against 30 years of service to PSU is unfathomable. Again, Mr. Freeh assumes that PSU officials have the power to look into the future.
It is time to regain what has been lost. It's time to take control of the media narrative.
The world is watching.
Raymond M. Blehar
  • Honors Graduate, Smeal MBA Class of 2008
  • Sparks Circle Member, Presidents Club
  • Lifetime Member, Penn State Alumni Association
  • Charter Member, Mount Nittany Club
  • Honorary Coach Member, Nittany Lion Club

The Freeh Report and Joe Paterno

What do you do when reporters from a major metropolitan daily newspaper—in this case, The Philadelphia Inquirer—demonstrate that they are completely incapable of reading a published report—in this case The Freeh Report—and providing their readers with a coherent summary of its contents? What do you do when the egregious misreading of that report by these reporters presents its readers a very false picture of how officials at Penn State handled Mike McQueary’s allegations of child molestation by Jerry Sandusky in February 2001? Perhaps you would recommend that the Philadelphia Inquirer receive the “death penalty” and not be permitted to publish its sludge for a full year!
Readers of my website might recall that, on 9 February 2012, I wrote a scathing critique titled “Incompetent Journalists at the Philadelphia Inquirer Slandered Joe Paterno”. Especially outrageous was the Inquirer’s 4 December 2011 editorial, which asserted: “Instead of alerting authorities, university officials and staff participated in what has all the markings of a cover-up. Their dismissal of the reported rape of a boy in a locker-room shower as mere ‘horsing around’ was an outrageous example of a mind-set that the university must now eradicate…”
As we now know, thanks to my investigation into that “reported rape,” the Editorial Board’s outrage was misplaced, directed at a pseudo-event created by the person who falsely summarized McQueary’s testimony in the grand jury presentment. As I made very clear in my article, “Three False Assertions by the Grand Jury turned the Press and Public against Joe Paterno and Penn State,” McQueary’s first-hand sworn testimony contradicted the summary of his testimony found in the widely reported grand jury report.