Sunday, March 31

Multi-Media: Ray Blehar breaks down Nov 2011 grand jury presentment

Ray Blehar breaks down the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment at Franco's Town Hall held in Pittsburgh on Saturday, November 10, 2012. 

This event was covered by local media, including the Centre Daily Times and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Matt Morgan, of the CDT, wrote that my presentation focused on Victim 8, which was the first presentation I made that day.  Bill Schnacke, of the PPG, more correctly stated that my presentation focused on the state and local agencies failures in 1998.  Neither paper mentioned the chronology of the crimes or the fact that the OAG masked the associations of the victims. 

Special thanks to Linda Berkland for creating this video:

Franco's Town Hall, Eileen Morgan, Ray Blehar, and Panel Discussion video (1 hr. 56 mins).

Friday, March 29

The Limits of Memory and Suggestive Memory

The limits of memory and suggestive memory are factors that should not be overlooked in the Sandusky case. 

Ray Blehar

After the Ziegler release of the interview of "Victim 2," I got a phone call regarding the statement he made that "incriminated" Curley and Schultz because "V2" said Sandusky told him he'd be getting a call from Tim Curley because McQuery saw them engaged in a sex act. 

In an earlier blog post, I quoted Jim Clemente, who said:  "after ten years or twelve years or thirteen years, you can't remember specific words that you used in a conversation.  And it's irresponsible for somebody to quote somebody ten years or twelve years after the event and say those are the specific words they used in a specific conversation.  That is absolutely not done it's - it's not proper in a criminal investigation at all."

I reminded the caller of Clemente's statement and added that any "quotes" from 2001 can't be considered as an accurate account of what was said based on two things: the ability of memory and suggestive memory. 

Long Term Memory

First, what is retrieved from long term memory is typically part of a schema that your mind has established for retrieving information. For example, I can recall things that I learned from many years ago because my mind has built a system for retrieving it that relies on relationships between the information. New information is added to the schema.  I don't memorize it, rather, I understand how one piece of information relates to the next and my brain has established a schema.  The depth of processing builds the network for recalling it as needed.  

Certainly, there are things retrieved from memory as a matter of rote or repetition.  I like to use the Bill Clinton quote, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,' as an example.  This was a quote played over and over again in the news cycle, thus I remember it quite well.  It is doubtful that anything said in 2001 was repeated over and over again by any of the parties involved during that timeframe, thus was not committed to memory by rote.

In listening to Ziegler's interview of Sandusky. it appeared as if he could recall the events of that night in the shower with amazing clarity. He may have been able to do this because he was not recalling that particular incident, but the repeated pattern of horseplay he had with all the victims. Victim 4 reported very similar activities. Ziegler's "V2" and Sandusky worked out and showered on several occasions. It is likely the same activities occurred each time, thus March 1, 2002 or the correct date of Feb 9, 2001 are essentially the same occurrence as retrieved from the schema of memory.  

Ziegler's "Victim 2" recalled what happened that night as well, but it was essentially the schema he had built regarding the multiple times that he had horsed around in the shower with Sandusky.  Obviously, not exactly the same events transpired each time, but the mind had formed a lasting impression of the shower activity that was recalled from long term memory.

However, I highly doubt that he had built a schema for remembering the exact words of a phone call from 12 years ago.   The interjection of new information very likely made its way into the recollection of what was said in that phone call.  That was likely a result of suggestive memory.

Suggestive Memory
On November 9, 2011 (the date of the interview), the person claiming to be Victim 2, just like the rest of us were subject to an unrelenting news cycle that repeated the WRONG DATE of the incident (which he repeated) and that McQueary witnessed a sex act/rape in the shower. This information was interjected into his memory of events, so that when he recalled the phone call from Sandusky he added the information that he had been hearing over the days leading up to his interview.(i.e., McQueary was the reporter - unknown to Sandusky until November 2011- and that McQueary believed he witnessed a sex act) 

This article from LiveScience explains it quite well.

Some of this failure of reliability happens at the scene of the crime, said Maria Zaragoza, a psychologist at Kent State University in Ohio. Things happen quickly; the emotional charge of witnessing a crime may keep people from cuing into important details. If there's a weapon, Zaragoza said, people tend to become hyper-focused on it. They pay more attention to a gun than to the face of the person holding it.

Often, "the information getting into the memory system is very limited," Zaragoza told LiveScience.

The next source of memory uncertainty happens during the investigation. Suggestive questioning can distort memories, Zaragoza said. Each time you relive the crime, either out loud to an investigator or in your own head, that distorted memory is strengthened.

In one famous case, 22-year-old college student Jennifer Thompson was raped at knife point by an intruder in her bedroom. Through her terror, Thompson tried to categorize the details of her assailant's face. She went to the police and worked with an artist to draw a composite sketch. In photo, in a lineup and in court, she identified her rapist as Ronald Cotton.

"I was completely confident," Thompson (now Jennifer Thompson-Cannino) wrote in a 2000 editorial in the New York Times. "I was sure."

But 11 years later, new DNA techniques disproved Cotton's guilt. He'd spent more than a decade in prison for a crime committed by another man, Bobby Poole.

It's likely that working on the police sketch altered Thompson's memory of her rapist's face, Zaragoza said. Later, when she'd picked him out of a lineup, her confidence only grew. Cotton's face started haunting her flashbacks. When she met her real rapist in court, she didn't even recognize him.

What happened to Cotton and Thompson, chronicled in the book "Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption" (St. Martin's Press, 2009), wasn't a weakness of Thompson's, Zaragoza said. Anyone's memory can become twisted with time.

Mike McQueary

So, as Mike McQueary glanced into the shower, was his focus on the victim, who was behind Sandusky or was it on Sandusky (the threat)?

And did the questioning by investigators have an effect on McQueary's memory?  Ziegler's "Victim 2" was a 14 year old boy in 2001, yet McQueary identified the boy as being 10 or 11.  Did the investigators suggest that Sandusky had a habit of showering with young boys that influenced McQueary to state the boy was of a younger age than he actually observed?

These are legitimate questions that aren't posed to make the case that Sandusky is innocent.  As a matter of law, every time Sandusky showered with a minor, he was committing two felonies and one misdemeanor.  However, the science suggests that McQueary's memory of the 2001 incident may have distorted the incident over time or that his recollection of the event was influenced by information provided to him by police during the investigation.   This does not mean McQueary is lying because he may indeed believe that his recollection of events is truly what he saw.  

But I would be willing to be any amount of money that Mike McQueary's recollection of offensive formations and offensive football plays is far superior to his recollection of the events of  February 2001 because his brain has established the schema for performing the recall of that information.


The limits of memory regarding an isolated incident preclude one from remembering exact words or exact details of the event.  It is likely that no one involved in the 2001 incident remembers exactly what was said.  Tim Curley, as athletic director, had many other things on this plate that demanded his attention, particularly the expansion of Beaver Stadium in 2001,  that would taken precedence.  Similarly, Gary Schultz, Joe Paterno, and Graham Spanier, would not have focused on this event, given the multitude of issues they faced on a daily basis.

Thursday, March 28

Dr. Joseph A. Cattano: The Tragedy of Premature Conclusions


Sometimes it is painfully difficult to hold onto something that in your soul you believe 
is true, particularly when that very belief has faced an onslaught by those 
parties and individuals who control the dialogue:  Maybe that is what faith is all about.  Penn State students, alumni, and fans who have followed the tragic situation at their university have had to sit tight and endure the anger, incrimination, and vitriol that were the manifestation of the Louis Freeh Report, a presentment that went without
 challenge or vetting: The fact is, that it was literally accepted in its 
entirety at face value.  However, in recent months we have had the opportunity to experience new
 and revealing reports commissioned by the Paterno family.   These presentments offered cogent,
 well constructed, comprehensive counterpoints and challenging findings by
 individuals with truly impressive credentials.  Finally, we have the opportunity to experience the long overdue 
vetting and rebuttal to what some considered the questionable findings of the Louis
 Freeh Report.  Yet for the most part, these new presentations have been ignored by the media or discredited for
 a host of what seem ill-considered reasons. It feels as if there is a dedicated
 unwillingness to countenance the possibility that the Freeh Report was flawed 
and overstated in its conclusions.

Let us not forget the response to the findings and pronouncements contained in the Louis
Freeh Report.  The popular hosts of television and radio talk shows, sports commentators, columnists, private 
citizens, fans, the Penn State Board of Trustees (BOT), and of course the NCAA 
all reacted almost instantly, ruthlessly castigating in particular the 
legendary coach Joe Paterno for allegedly being an accomplice in a disgraceful
 cabal to hide what happened at Penn State.  In my opinion, Mr. Freeh presented his findings in a manner
filled with hyperbole and overstatement, a theatrical, dramatic style clearly
 designed to "raise the ire" of the audience.  Of course, the media picked up the "drum beat" and opined in
 a similar style, the airwaves and editorial pages filled with commentaries couched 
in indignation and outrage. To be incensed with Jerry Sandusky after the trial revealed
 his guilt is totally understandable and maybe even welcome.  But regarding the "Penn State Four"
(Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno), it quickly became apparent that for far 
too many there was neither the time nor the desire to be patient until a more
 complete picture could emerge - a picture wherein other sources of factual
 evidence could be put on the table and considered before reaching conclusions 
regarding any alleged cover-up.  And, regardless of the Paterno presentments, I fear that the particularly loathsome 
nature of sexual predation and victimization has permitted and justified in the 
minds of many a sweeping attack upon and sterilization of everything Penn
State-related.  A predator hurt young children; hysteria and the lack of due process damaged a great university and
 an iconic figure.

I believe it is incumbent upon us to at least wonder why so
 many individuals were willing to almost blindly accept one presentment and not
at least wonder if there should not have been a public vetting of a document 
that was filled with such damning conclusions, particularly since the 
conclusions were based upon a suspect methodology of investigation.  To me, that was unconscionable! It 
should not have been permitted to happen. Were those who based their opinions strictly on the Freeh Report not 
aware of his investigative record? It is both important and revealing to note 
the fact that Louis Freeh completed a report for FIFA, the governing body of
 the International Soccer Association, pertaining to corruption charges against 
Bin Hamman, a candidate for president. Upon review by the Court of Arbitration of Sport, many of the charges 
were dismissed as they found the investigative report by Freeh to be incomplete 
and lacking in the necessary comprehensiveness.  Should that not at least be a flag that suggests proceeding
 with caution before taking his findings at Penn State as irrefutable, rock-solid 
truths? I would think so.

Apparently in what has been termed a "rush to injustice," there was neither tolerance nor time for another 
narrative to develop.  Due process and in particular one of the most honored pillars of American jurisprudence, the
 notion of prosecution and defense, were cast to the wind.  It seemed everyone knew who the guilty 
parties were - so let's not waste time: Might as well just throw the rope over 
the limb and have a good old-fashioned media lynching!  It would have been helpful if someone 
had reminded those individuals who were so quick to convict and punish of that famous 
novel that so dramatically depicted the consequences of callous injustice ? The Ox-Bow Incident.

Unfortunately, like many media-generated stories, the Penn State saga has a "media life" wherein other more recent 
narratives and information no longer pique the interest of the media and general public; the once irresistible sensationalism of Paterno and Penn State has quickly lost consumer interest.  In essence, the damage has been done and the thinking of many has been set almost irretrievably in concrete.

As a psychoanalyst, I believe that what we are currently experiencing (as evidenced by the recent Piers Morgan and 
Matt Lauer interviews) is technically what we call resistance. Particularly, individuals are often rigidly resistant to facing the 
reality of their actions and misperceptions.  Simply - they would rather not know and remain attached to 
their false notions, delusions, and dysfunctional behavior.  When these individuals are confronted, 
they often become agitated and highly defensive.  A perfect example of this was the manner in which Piers 
Morgan attacked Ziegler and tried to dismiss his information as bogus and ridiculous.  

Unfortunately, Ziegler's 
natural manner is not conducive to having a reasonable conversation with someone as defended as Morgan. 
Resistance must be tactfully addressed and removed before an individual can engage in a conversation that might raise their anxiety and promote a degree of self-examination. Few have the capacity of a Bob Costas to entertain 
the notion that he was premature in his opinions and consequently found the capacity and strength to revise his conclusions.   For most of those who publicly denounced Paterno, they must either flee from or discredit the new revelations in order to save face and to sidestep the damage to a great university, its alumni, and a legendary 
iconic man, which in part they are responsible for.  Sadly, it seems to be a characteristic of our still immature
 and often tabloid-minded society.

I am particularly confused by the actions of the NCAA regarding the draconic sanctions imposed upon Penn State. To me, they seem a little "psychotic;"  that is, not in touch with the reality of what transpired at Penn State. 
And, it is important to understand that what happened at Penn State has likely happened at other universities and institutions across our country.  This is a national problem, not just a Penn State problem.

In my opinion, the NCAA wandered far out of bounds from their designated role; that is, to monitor and assure the fairness of competition and safety of college athletics.  And, it is important to keep in mind that the true scope of these sanctions or more to the point - punishments, intentionally or unintentionally, has caused substantial distress to the entirety of the Penn State: the reputation of a great university; the alumni of Penn State; the current 
student body; present and past football teams (wins vacated from 1998 through 2011); and of course the residents and businesses of central Pennsylvania that are reliant upon the revenues generated by football at Beaver Stadium.  Of course, it is particularly frustrating, as the justifications for these sanctions have now been challenged with some well-considered opinions that are rather convincing in their dismissal of the assumptions and poorly substantiated conclusions contained in
 the Freeh Report.

Again, I believe that the NCAA is in the same situation regarding resistance.  It would be rather anxiety provoking for them to change their position, as it might suggest that they were at least extreme in their actions regarding PSU, if not downright wrong.  Attacking or confronting them simply will strengthen their resistance and resolve to keep the sanctions in effect.  However, an empathic, non-confrontational strategy that helps reduce their resistance to considering the Paterno presentment might at least provide a stepping-stone to reducing or eliminating the sanctions.

When considering what happened at Penn State, we need to promote a rational perspective.  Jim Clemente, a highly recognized expert on child sexual abuse and a former FBI profiler, clearly points out in his report that the failure on the part of individuals and institutions to  quickly recognize the identity of sexual predators and the scope of their actions is both 
well documented and unfortunately all too common. Psychologists and sociologists have long elaborated upon how incredibly masterful predators are in covering up or obscuring the reality of their behavior with children - the so-called "grooming" process: familiarity with family members, a high level of regard within the community, and a revered image all work in the service of cleverly concealing that which is actually happening and can cause hesitation within the minds of those who might entertain suspicions.   In his report, Jim Clemente uses the expression "nice guy acquaintance" victimizer in referring to the pattern and style of predation that Jerry had mastered. Under an elaborately constructed disguise as a pillar of the community, legendary defensive coach, and the force behind the Second Mile program, he was able to satisfy his sexual needs with children with no suspicios by anyone.  In essence, he was a masterful and cunning "groomer;" but it was not strictly the children who were groomed for his needs.  Over a long period of time, the entire Penn State
 University - State College community was successfully groomed to cover up his deeds and provide for his special needs. 
It is well within reason to at least consider that the situation at Penn State was one in which anyone who may have had some questions regarding Jerry Sandusky's behavior with children may unfortunately have cavalierly dismissed 
them as just "Jerry being Jerry." And of course, his development of and commitment to the Second Mile
 Program put him high in the regard of the entire State College community.

I believe that we need to communicate to our detractors and doubters how incredibly difficult it was to even contemplate, let alone believe, that someone who maintained such high esteem within the community - an individual who had been the source of accolades and admiration- could be guilty of abusing those very children he purported to assist and protect.  And, in Jim Clemente's opinion, that is what happened at Penn State and that is why in fact there was no cabal - no sinister intent to cover-up of Sandusky's actions.  It is just those thoughts - those very misperceptions regarding "acquaintance victimizers" that enable masterful predators like Jerry Sandusky in particular, to go without revelation until the tragedy that has befallen the victims is finally recognized and confronted.  Finally, there now is a reasonable, plausible narrative presented by an acknowledged expert in the field of child sexual abuse and victimization that makes sense out of how things went down at Penn State in the late 1990's and early 2000's.  I suggest that it is relatively impossible to use 2011 eyes to see and understand actions in 1998 or 2001.  And that was Freeh's critical fault and the failing of his report; that is, the inability to grasp the true nature of what was happening at Penn State circa 1998-2001.

In my opinion, the Penn State Board of Trustees should have defended, not defiled Joe Paterno's reputation until
 due process, or at least further sworn testimony, showed that he was a knowing participant in any alleged cover-up.  The
 dedication of his life's energy as well as much of his personal wealth to Penn State should at least have warranted that consideration. You do not permit a great university, its alumni, and an iconic figure to be trashed on a singular,
 unchallenged, and suspect piece of so-called evidence.  Had the media and the board of trustees
 waited until the truth came forward, hysteria would have succumbed to the quieting light of due process and honest revelation  and that is the way it should be!

For reasons that are rather apparent, the assault on the legacy of Joe Paterno reminded me of the infamous
"Dreyfus Affair."  In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a French army artillery officer, was tried and found guilty of treason by a court martial on the basis of false and misleading evidence - evidence that was contrived and corrupted in order to reach a predetermined desired outcome.  It was later revealed that testimony on the treasonous actions of Dreyfus was perjured -filled with outrageous insinuations and assumptions. However, thanks in part to the relentless efforts of the fiery writer Emile
Zola (J'accuse) and a few dedicated individuals, the truth was finally revealed and the conspiracy against Dreyfus was shown for what it really was - anti-Semitism and the corruption of due process by entrenched powers.  After spending years banished to the infamous Devil's Island in French Guyana, he was found innocent and his rank restored.  But the similarities are disturbing: When initially found guilty, Dreyfus was paraded in front of a jeering public, stripped of his rank and insignia medals, and his sword broken in half.  In his disgraced and torn uniform, he was paraded through the crowd and spat upon. Think about it!  Joe's statue being removed, his placards torn down, his record from 1998 through 2011 erased, and his legacy being dragged through the media to be spat upon and his name a source of disgrace.  Again, are the parallels not compelling at least and frightening at worst?  All this predicated on assumptions and "must have knowns."  J'accuse the American media of a mass hysteria.  J'accuse the media of creating a man of mythical proportions, only then to revel in destroying him.

It is rather ironic to note that the NCAA chastised Penn State for permitting the culture of football to dominate 
and corrupt the affairs of the university.  What? Did I hear that correctly?  Are they joking?  Is the NCAA suffering from delusions? For decades, Penn State has been the absolute model for the student-athlete, with the annual graduation rates 
for football players consistently among the highest in the country - and often the highest.  Particularly,
the graduation rate for African-American athletes surpasses almost all other institutions.  Penn State is noted 
for producing academic all-Americans at an unprecedented rate; yet; the NCAA warns them about the culture of football - a
 culture largely created by the NCAA itself, as it has negotiated massive financial contracts with the media for
bowl games, play-offs, etc.  J'accuse the NCAA of blatant hypocrisy - of pointing an accusatory finger at Penn State when that very finger should be pointed at themselves.  And, J'accuse the Board of Trustees for cowering to bullies by not demanding due process to provide a more reasonable and factual understanding of what really transpired and illuminating any role that Paterno and others might have had in this tragedy.  J'accuse  the Board of Trustees of derogation of the responsibility of debunking the attacks regarding the "culture of football" at Penn State and demonstrating with facts what we have accomplished in the last forty years. J'accuse the Board of Trustees for not properly and openly vetting the Freeh report, before accepting it as fact and justification for their actions.  In fact, I now must wonder if the Board of Trustees had an agenda regarding Joe - maybe even the rare opportunity for a few to act-out some bizarre vendetta regarding Joe Paterno.  It surely begs the question: Was the Sandusky situation an ideal time to get some payback and destroy the legacy of Joe Paterno?  Maybe not to others, but to me that is the only way I can understand the impulsivity of the board in firing Joe and their refusal to stand behind a man who had done so much for Penn State.  There seems to be a play within a play within a play.

In closing, if due process should reveal culpability on the part of Joe Paterno and other members of the
 administration for the tragedy that occurred at Penn State, I will accept it and slowly, painfully work through it - always remembering that children were hurt.  But until that is established, although cantankerous in nature and imperfect as a man, I will continue to embrace the notion of Joe Paterno as a brilliant and dedicated coach, teacher, and philanthropist at a great university. He was steadfastly committed to an idealized notion of what college athletics should be and never veered far from that vision.  Unlike the falsified, aggrandized media image that made Joe Paterno a man for all seasons - the reality is that he was but a man made for the football season.

Joseph A. Cattano, Ph.D.,
PSU 1971

Monday, March 25

Kenneth Frazier: Control of Narrative Extends to the Internet

Jeffrey Simons

“The control of information is something the elite always does, particularly in a despotic form of government. Information, knowledge, is power. If you can control information, you can control people.”
-- Tom Clancy

According to the current version of Ken Frazier’s Wikipedia page:

“On March 14, 2013, at a sub-committee meeting of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Frazier uttered what was considered to be a racially-insensitive remark at a candidate running for the Board of Trustees who criticized the Freeh narrative.  Frazier apologized for his remarks several days later.”

The exchange was caught on tape by CDT reporter Mike Dawson and posted to youtube:

Frazier’s apology came in the form of a Centre Daily Times letter on 3/17/13, and once again we were all asked to put this behind us and move on. 

However, the story behind Ken Frazier’s Wikipedia page is a little more revealing, one that undermines the sincerity of his apology and shows how he is still trying to control the narrative, even when it comes to public information about himself.

Wikipedia is a web based encyclopedic resource, created and maintained entirely by a community of registered volunteer users.  Pages can be created, edited, re-edited, or updated by any number of public users at any time.  There is a group of moderators who can lock pages to prevent further updates and temporarily ban users if the edits violate the rules governing the users.

(For a full account of the following actions, please see:

On the morning of March 17, 2013 – before Frazier’s apology had run in the CDT – a user with the screen name “BroadSt Bully” restored a paragraph that had been deleted 2 days before describing Frazier’s role in hiring Louis Freeh and firing Joe Paterno.  BroadSt Bully also added a paragraph about the racially insensitive comment made by Frazier 3 days earlier:

On March 14, 2013, at a sub-committee meeting of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Frazier uttered a racist and bigoted remark at a candidate running for the Board of Trustees who criticized the Freeh narrative.

BroadSt Bully also removed the qualifier “blue ribbon” which described the Special Investigative Task Force (“commission”).

12 hours later, a user identified only by his IP address removed both of those paragraphs.  This IP address traces back to a Comcast user in Doylestown, PA.

3 hours later, a user in the Netherlands (possibly an administrator) restored the paragraphs with the qualifying edit note: 

“The previous edit deleted balancing material that provides criticism of the figure in question. Wikipedia articles are not "fluff pieces" that say only positive things” 

Approximately 14 hours later (11:54 18 March 2013), the previous user once again deleted these 2 paragraphs.  40 minutes later, they were restored by an admin in Connecticut.

Merck Corporate Works on the Cover-up

An hour later a user identified by the IP address once again removed those paragraphs.  However, this IP address traced back to a corporate ISP:  Merck.

General IP Information
Top of Form
Merck and Co.
Merck and Co.
Bottom of Form
Geolocation Information
United States us flag
New Jersey
Old Bridge
40.3958  (40° 23′ 44.88″ N)
-74.3255  (74° 19′ 31.80″ W)
Area Code:
Postal Code:

And then the internet sparks began to fly.  Over the next 3 hours, users would attempt to restore those 2 paragraphs, only to be deleted within minutes by the Merck user.

At 14:03 user “Cornmd” restores the 2 paragraphs.  14:15 the Merck IP address deletes them.

At 14:16 user “Ubiquity” restores the 2 paragraphs.  14:21 the Merck IP address deletes them. 

At 14:22 user “BroadSt Bully” restores the 2 paragraphs.  14:22 the Merck IP address deletes them. 

User “Arctic Kangaroo” tries to restore the paragraphs and within minutes, the Merck IP address deletes them.  Arctic Kangaroo restores the content at 14:25, at which point the content is temporarily removed for discussion by “Edgar181” at 14:31.

At 14:39 BroadSt Bully restores the content with the edit note:  “Re-added sourced material. User's IP address traces to Merck, who is Frazier's employer”

At 14:57 BroadSt Bully adds titles to the 2 paragraphs “Jerry Sandusky sex scandal” and “Racially insensitive outburst."  

At 15:30 the Merck user deletes them.  Over the next 2 hours, the Merck user makes 5 more attempts to delete content, and add flattering career highlights for Ken Frazier, until an admin warns him that he is violating 4 different Wikipedia terms of service.  

Five minutes later, the Wikipedia admins lock down edits of the Wikipedia page.  

Two hours later, the Merck user is blocked for one month from editing ANY web pages. 

This was not the first time this user was blocked by Wikipedia.  Here is the discipline history of which warranted the one month penalty for “disruptive editing”:

21:53, 18 March 2013 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) blocked (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Disruptive editing)
  22:21, 10 July 2012 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) blocked (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Copyright violations)
  20:11, 7 November 2008 RoySmith (talk | contribs) blocked (talk) (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Repeated reversion of text to Yak shaving contrary to prior AFD decision)
  22:13, 25 January 2006 Hall Monitor (talk | contribs) blocked (talk) with an expiry time of 48 hours (massive content removal)
  21:00, 1 December 2005 Brian0918 (talk | contribs) blocked (talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalisms) 

Previous edit on Freeh Report entry on Frazier's wiki page

Interesting to note Ken Frazier’s Wikipedia page had a previous edit disputed.  

On October 21, 2012, a user named “Callancc” described the Freeh report as being accepted “without review, but was reported to be riddled with conjecture, research with gaping holes, and unsubstantiated conclusions.”  It was revised on November 5, 2012 by an IP address from Boston University to say the Freeh report was accepted “and used as the basis for the NCAA sanctions against Penn State.” With the edit note:

“The last sentence was ridiculously partisan, clearly there only to attempt to discredit the Freeh report which was widely seen as fair and thoroughly done.”)

The Merck user created an account on Wikipedia on October 10, 2005 and spent most of his early time updating the Wikipedia pages of Ann Coulter and Ron Dellums (a long time member of the House of Representatives from California, who became the Mayor of Oakland in 2007).

Controlling the PSU Narrative

Ken Frazier’s comments to Bill Cluck had been widely circulated among the Penn State community the day he made them, but they never reached a global audience until they were posted in Wikipedia.  

There is a dogged determination from this Merck user to remove this content from Wikipedia.  In addition, the Merck IT team has been hard at work over the weekend to bury any negative articles circulating about Frazier on the internet and pumping up his bio and other positive articles as they appear in google searches.

Once again, it appears that Frazier is trying to control the narrative by controlling the information available to the public.  

Which begs the question, what audience is he really trying to control?

Sunday, March 24

Kenneth Frazier: Cover Up Artist

 suspected Kenneth Frazier was selected to lead the Special Investigations Task Force as part of a PSU cover-up.  With his refusal to let anyone debate, let alone re-investigate, the Freeh Report and investigation, Frazier is showing his cards.

From Slate:

The Cover-Up Artist

Why is the CEO of Merck leading the sex-abuse investigation at Penn State?

Penn State University trustee and Merck and Co. CEO Kenneth Frazier.
Penn State University trustee and Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier will chair the internal committee investigating the Sandusky case
Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.
Much remains unknown about the extent of the alleged child abuse by Penn State’s former football coach, Jerry Sandusky, and about how long and how much university officials knew of it. If past scandals are any guide, Sandusky’s alleged abuse claimed more than the eight victims identified by the grand jury investigation. (The New York Times reports today that police are working to confirm allegations by “close to 10” more suspected victims who have contacted authorities since Sandusky’s arrest on Nov. 5.) As each additional victim’s story become known, more attention will be focused on the question of why Penn State officials didn’t do more to stop the alleged sexual predator in their midst.
Late last week, the university’s trustees announced they would conduct their own “full and complete” investigation into the matter. The probe will be headed, though, by a man with a track record of protecting powerful institutions from the consequences of their inaction: the chairman and CEO of the Merck pharmaceutical company, Kenneth C. Frazier. A Penn State alum and Harvard-trained lawyer, Frazier is best known for his phenomenal success in defending a sordid chapter in Merck’s recent past—its years-long silence about the safety problems of the popular painkiller Vioxx.
For most of the five-and-a-half years it sold Vioxx, Merck knew the drug doubled the risk of cardiovascular problems among users, but it did not tell doctors or patients. Instead, it pursued an active disinformation campaign—telling doctors that Vioxx was safer for the heart than older painkillers (it was not), squashing university scientists who dared to dissent, and withholding clinical trial results that would have definitively proven Vioxx’s risks to federal regulators. In late 2004, after the weight of the evidence became impossible to deny, Merck abruptly pulled Vioxx from the market.