Thursday, April 25

Baldwin Perjury: Never told PSU Officials About Subpoena 1179

Analyses of Tim Curley's statement to the police, Spanier's New Yorker interview, and Schultz's grand jury testimony reveals that Cynthia Baldwin lied about informing the men about the subpoena for documents related to the 2002 incident.

Ray Blehar

The obstruction of justice charges against Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, and Gary Schultz for not turning over documents related to the Sandusky incident are baseless and part of "framing" the PSU officials.  

If there is a conspiracy in this case, it is between Cynthia Baldwin and the former occupants of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

Grand Jury Subpoena 1179, issued in December 2010, required PSU "to acquire and disclose to the Grand Jury:  Any and all records pertaining to the Sandusky incidents reported to occur on or about March 2002 and any other information concerning Jerry Sandusky in inappropriate contact with underage males on and off University property.  Response shall include any and all correspondence directed to or regarding Jerry Sandusky"

The Manti Te'o Meetings

The "Conspiracy of Silence" presentment, page 21, states that Baldwin informed  Spanier about the subpoena for the documents.  Baldwin also stated that in the weeks after being served with the subpoena,  she held a number of meetings with Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to ascertain if any information responsive to the subpoena were found.  Baldwin stated that each of the men assured her that they had investigated and that they had possessed no documents or information responsive to Subpoena 1179.

Please note that in December 2010, Gary Schultz was no longer working for Penn State.  He was retired.  Thus, he would not have been able to search the university e-mail system or his office for this information.  So, unless special arrangements were made for Schultz to visit his office to search it, he wouldn't have access to the files.  There is no mention of Schultz visiting PSU to perform the search of his office.  

Schultz's attorneys refuted the Commonwealth's contention that he hid the file and court documents filed by the Schultz team state he informed Baldwin of the existence of his files on or about January 5, 2011 - when she told him he was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury.  Baldwin told Schultz not to retrieve the files to refresh his memory or to talk with Curley, Spanier, or Paterno to refresh his memory.  This guidance would preclude Baldwin from calling meetings of the men to discuss the subpoena for the documents, as that activity would have undoubtedly refreshed their memories.

Schultz's police interview also indicates that there was never any meetings between the three men who were involved in the decision about the 2001 meeting.  Schultz reported that a meeting had been arranged and he met with Paterno, McQueary, and Curley to discuss the incident.  Clearly, if he had met with Curley in meetings to discuss Subpoena 1179, he would have learned that a meeting between he, Paterno, McQueary, and Curley never happened.

Former President Graham Spanier, in his New Yorker interview, stated he was not informed about the Sandusky investigation until January 2011 or late December at the earliest.  Spanier does not recall any subpoenas other than those served to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz for their Grand Jury appearances.  Spanier also stated: 

 "In that period from January, February, March, she [Baldwin] only gave me a report that these folks are going to the grand jury. She told me somewhere along the way that they were interviewing staff in the football program, and she would be there for all the interviews... I was very much in the dark about it."  

Spanier also stated that prior to the November 2011 grand jury presentment, he had only known about the one (2001) shower incident.  Thus it is beyond credulity that meetings of the PSU officials occurred to discuss documents pertaining to the 2002 (sic) incident.  If they had, Spanier undoubtedly would have learned of the 1998 incident and testified to it at his grand jury appearance.  Instead, he denied any knowledge of the incident.

Curley testified that he was also unaware of the 1998 incident when he went before the grand jury.  Further corroborating that he certainly did not engage in discussions with Schultz - the only other person to know about 1998 - to refresh his memory.

These meetings Baldwin referred to in her grand jury testimony were as real as Manti Te'o's girlfriend.  

Call it what you want to call it - lying under oath or perjury.  

She committed a crime when she testified.

Mystery Date

Prior to his grand jury testimony on January, 11, 2011, Tim Curley was interviewed by Trooper Scott Rossman and Agent Anthony Sassano in the presence of then PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin.  Curley reported that the issue was addressed in 2000 and there had been no meetings since then.  If Curley had attended multiple meetings to discuss Subpoena 1179, which specifically cited the year 2002, why would he get the date wrong in this interview? 

Schultz's recollection of the date of the event is equally poor.  On page 223 of the Preliminary Perjury Transcript, Schultz states: "I don't recall what McQueary told me, but I can tell you that I, after going through  what we went through in 2003, I kind of had the impression that that was the kind of thing that had taken place.  Schultz's reference to 2003 may have been about (the publicity surrounding the) Anwar Phillips sexual assault case.  Therefore, Schultz was also unaware of the exact date of the incident.  Again, how could Schultz not know the date was 2002 if he sat in multiple meetings to discuss documents related to Subpoena 1179?  

The failure to report or testify correctly to the date specified on Subpoena 1179 provides considerable evidence that these men were never informed about the subpoena or even discussed any details of the incident prior to their police interviews and/or grand jury appearances.  

In a PennLive report discussing Baldwin's representation of Curley and Schultz,  stated she drove the men to Harrisburg for their appearance and never discussed the case with them.


The Conspiracy of Silence presentment is nothing more than a Conspiracy of Nonsense cooked up by Cynthia Baldwin and the former OAG officials.   

Tuesday, April 23

Eileen Morgan: Freeh Debacle Times Three

Louis Freeh's latest report gets low marks from Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security.  Wynn Resorts report has same fatal flaws as PSU report.  

Eileen Morgan

Click on the box to view larger/fuller screen.

Complete Website of Eileen's Writings

Monday, April 22

Upcoming Events: Film Fest, Apr 26 & 28; Upon Further Review - May 4

The Framing of Joe Paterno - West Chester Film Festival
Friday Apr 26. - 9:30 - 11:30PM
Sunday Apr 28 - 12:00 - 2:00PM


The Knights of Columbus (KoC), 110 West Market Street, West Chester, PA

Upon Further Review - Northampton Comm College
Saturday, May 4 - 7:00PM - 9:30PM


NCC, Lipkin Auditorium, 3835 Green Pond Rd, Bethlehem, PA 18020

Sunday, April 21

Bill Cluck: 15 Questions for Kenneth Frazier: Unanswered after 36 Days

15 Questions

Here are the 15 questions Ken Frazier agreed to respond to on March 17, 2013:
1. Who participated in selecting the members of the Special Task Force
2. How many firms submitted proposals and who saw the proposals
3. How many of those firms were interviewed
4. Who conducted the interviews
5. After his firm was retained, was there communication from Freeh to task force
6. Was such communication orally or written
7. To whom was the communication directed, did entire task force receive it
8. Were any of those communications shared with members of BOT who were not on task force
9. If so, which ones and what communications
10. Freeh contract required notice to Task Force if he used third parties
11. What third parties were used and was notice provided to task force
12. Did task force or psu approve fee arrangements for third parties
13. Were all Freeh contacts with AG officials also noticed to task force, if Freeh gave any docs to AG were copies given to Task Force
14. Did Task Force hold any meetings, conference calls
15. Following release of Freeh report, did task force meet?
As of April 21, 2013, no response has been received

Saturday, April 20

Recap of State College, PA, Upon Further Review, 19 April 2013

Presentation shows the PA OAG successful in "anchoring" public opinion that PSU officials and, specifically the football program, enabled Sandusky to rape children on PSU's campus, but the evidence and trial verdicts prove otherwise.

Ray Blehar

From the large placards used at the press conference for the Sandusky indictment, to the grand jury presentment, Paterno's firing, and the Sandusky trial, state government officials successfully "anchored" a false narrative that PSU football enabled Sandusky to rape children on the PSU campus for over a decade.  This salacious narrative was used by the OAG to deflect attention away from its three year investigation of Sandusky which failed to identify a single victim.  My presentation of Friday, as it did in November 2011, destroyed that narrative by using the verdicts and testimony from the Sandusky trial.

"Anchoring Quotes"

“…he saw a naked boy…ten years old…being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky…”
 --Grand Jury Presentment 

“…remember that little old boy in the shower.”
--Governor Tom Corbett

“…the rapes of these boys occurred in the Lasch Building.” 
-- Louis Freeh

“…repeatedly concealed critical facts related to Sandusky’s child
 -- Louis Freeh

Locations of the Crimes

Based on Verdict Slips 2421 and 2422 of 2011, the locations of the crimes were:

15 counts specific to PSU property
  -- Victim 2 – four counts
  -- Victim 5 – three counts
  -- Victim 6 – three counts
  -- Victim 8 – five counts (possible error in admitting hearsay testimony)

30 counts not specific to PSU property (24 occurred off premises)

Of the counts on the PSU campus, the Victim 8 counts are highly questionable and may be overturned on appeal by the Superior Court.  However, there is no doubt that the majority of the crimes in this case were not committed on PSU's campus and that 12 of the fifteen counts are for Sandusky showering with minor youth.

Timeline of Crimes Reviewed

Because of the impact and importance of the timelines of the Sandusky crimes, I repeated the information noting that the police failed to identify any of the victims.

•Victim 7 - Abused 1997 in various locations
Victim 10 – Abused 1997-1999 in various locations.
•Victim 4 - Abused 1998-2000 in various locations.
•Victim 6 - Single shower incident 1998 at PSU.
•Victim 5 - Single shower incident 1998 at PSU.
•Victim 3 - Abused 2000 at Sandusky home and other locations.
•Victim 8 - Abused PSU shower 2000.
Victim 2 – Abused PSU shower 2001 - witnessed by McQueary – reported by PSU officials, who 
reported it to Second Mile.

                            Apparent Stop of Abuse for 3 years

•Aaron Fisher – Abused 2005-2008 at Sandusky’s home & CMHS.
Victim 9 – Abused 2006-2009 at Sandusky’s home

The Sandusky Investigation

To set the stage for the preview of my upcoming Report 3 on the Sandusky investigation and prosecution (expected to be released in May), I provided the following quotes:

“Anyone who sat through that trial knows it was a thorough
investigation.  I don’t care what it looks like.  I know because I was
there.  There was no holding back.”
  --OAG Supervisory Agent,
   Randy Feathers

“When you’re not getting breaks, it doesn’t mean you’re not working.”
  --OAG Supervisory Agent,
   Randy Feathers

“It was kept very secretive, of course, and people wanted to maintain
 that secret.
              -- Agent Anthony Sassano

Mini-Timeline of Investigation

The timeline in Report 3 is four pages long and includes nearly all the dates for police initial interviews with the victims, their grand jury testimony, and other dates.  The significant points on this mini-timeline are that the cops were telling Fisher about other victims from the outset, that the OAG learned of the 1998 investigation in June 2009, and that it took the OAG nineteen months to get the 1998 police report from PSU.   Who was "holding back" and who was "keeping secrets?"

Dec  2008 -  Troopers Cavanaugh and Akers tell Victim 1 he is not  alone ~ Sandusky
                      had other victims (Trial testimony, June 12, 2012, page 77)

Feb 2009  -   Trooper Lear replaced Cavanaugh and Akers

April 2009 -  Centre County DA transfers case to OAG
May 2009 -    31st Statewide Investigating Grand Jury begins

June 2009 – Deputy AG Eschbach informed Mike Gillum that OAG was aware of 1998
                      Sandusky investigation (Silent No More, page 120)

June 2009 -  Rossman replaced Lear/told Fisher about other victims (Trial testimony, June 12,   
                            2012, page 77)

Nov  2010 -   Anonymous Tip Regarding 2001 incident

Dec 2010  -   Interview with Mother of Victim 6, who identifies five victims

Jan 2011  -   State Police obtain University Park Police Report of 1998 Sandusky
                     Investigation (19 months after learning about 1998)

Identifying the Victims

As reported previously, most of the victims were identified by the mother of Victim 6 (five victims), two others (Fisher & Victim 10) reported themselves, and one more was called in by a school official (Victim 9). Victims 2 and 8 remain unidentified.

Victim 3 - Agent Sassano testified about the leads that helped investigators find the victims.  Sassano stated that Victim 3, who was contacted in July 2011, was found through talking to another potential victim.  However, he was one of those identified by the mother of Victim 6 in December 2010.  He had several traffic dockets in the magisterial system, so he should have been found rather quickly if the police ran a records check.  Instead, it took them seven months to "find" him.

Victim 7  - Agent Sassano testified that Victim 7 was found on a 1995 camper list found after a warrant of Sandusky's office was executed on April 12, 2011.  His name was marked with an asterisk.  Sassano must be the unluckiest investigator, because had he been in Strawberry Square on April 11, 2011 - he could have found Victim 7 testifying at the grand jury!  Victim 7 was interviewed by police in February 2011.

Victim 10 - Agent Sassano testifed that Victim 10's name was marked with an asterisk on a 1998 camper list found in Sandusky's office in April.  Victim 10 had a criminal docket from 2007 in the magisterial system and had served a 23 month sentence in SCI-Albion for robbery - released in July 2009.   Victim 10 called the hotline in November 2011 after he heard the news of the Sandusky indictment.   The police didn't find him.

Victim 9 - Agent Sassano testified that Victim 10's name was on a TSM participant list found in Sandusky's home when the executed the warrant in June 2011.  His name was marked with a dash, his phone number was listed, and his mother's name was also listed.  His mother had a 2008 criminal docket in the system that contained her address.   Despite all of this information,the police did not find this victim.  His assistant principal called his name into the police after the grand jury presentment was released.

And despite the obvious facts that Victims 9 and 10 came forward after the presentment, no one in the media - including the CDT - questioned Sassano's story about finding these "leads."  Press reports focused- in part- on Sassano's statements that PSU was slow in getting them information about the case.

The inconsistent statements of Sassano and others involved in the investigation will be detailed in my May report.

The Ages of the Victims and Crime Locations

In the Commonwealth's opening statement, Prosecutor McGettigan described the victims as "little children" who were "weak" and "unaware of the nature of the contact" with Sandusky. He also put the onus on PSU as the only organization who could have done something to stop Sandusky.  Again, this was an "anchoring" strategy for the jury and the press - and it worked.

McGettigan followed that up by first calling Victim 4, who related that practically all of the abuse happened to him as a "little kid" (for the record he was 13-16) and it happened in PSU facilities and hotels where the team stayed.  The evidence exhibits were dominated by PSU football related photographs.  It was also notable that McGettigan coached Victim 4 into saying he was a "little above bellybutton height" on Sandusky -- as a 13 year old.   Photographic evidence revealed that he was 5' 6" tall as a 15 year old, meaning he would have had to have grown 18" in two years.

McGettigan repeated this pattern of asking about the size of the victims throughout the trial.

The chart below is an analysis of the ages of the victims and locations of the crimes.  It revealed that the most serious crimes were committed against teenagers and those crimes were committed mostly off PSU's campus. (K = knew Sandusky, G = grooming, T = touching, OS = oral sex, and R = anal rape).

As the chart shows, the incidents of anal rape occurred at Sandusky's home, yet after the trial, the media reported and the public believed that Sandusky was raping little children on PSU's campus.

Note that Victim 10 is an "outlier," meaning that he was the only victim to testify to serious abuse crimes without any previous or later contact with Sandusky.  Dottie Sandusky testified she had never known Victim 10. (Note: Victim 6 continued contact with Sandusky into 2011).

However, the trial verdicts and media reports are evidence that the OAG's "anchoring" strategy was very effective.  And again, Report 3 will further dissect McGettigan's trial tactics.

More Analysis of the Victim 8/Janitor Incident

While many consider the Victim 8 incident to be a minor issue, I believe it is the second most important issue in this case.   Had the judge ruled that the hearsay testimony of Petrosky was inadmissable, there would have been no grounds to state PSU had a culture problem from the top (Spanier) to the bottom (the janitors).

Had the media analyzed this incident with a critical eye, they would have realized that the locations, timeframe, and circumstances of the incident were so inconsistent that getting a conviction on the testimony of Petrosky was close to a miracle.

The Locations
Between the OAG and the Freeh Report, the location of this crime was three different places.

Lasch – Asst Coaches Locker Room– Lasch Building (Grand Jury)

East Area Locker Building – Freeh Report, page 63

Lasch – Asst Coaches Locker Room – Freeh Report, page 65

Lasch – Staff Locker Room – Trial testimony of Petrosky

The OAG subpoeanaed the names of the janitors who worked in the East Area Locker Room (EALR).  The only logical explanation for this is because the grand jury testimony indicated that there was an obstruction or curtain that would block the bodies and is the Assistant Coaches shower in the EALR.  Victim 4 testified to that fact.

As I noted in my Pittsburgh presentation, the curtain presented a "problem" for the prosecution's case because if Petrosky could not see the bodies, then Calhoun would also be unable to see the bodies, thus could not have witnessed Sandusky performing oral sex on the victim.

Solution:  Tell a different story differently at trial  -- and that's what happened. McGettigan told Judge Cleland that the janitors (plural) now remembered the incident differently, but that the changes were not significant.  .

Time Frames of the Crime
The Commonwealth's and Petrosky's time frames for the Victim 8 crimes follow:

Fall 2000 (Grand Jury)

Thursday or Friday night of an away football game.

Between November 20 and 27, 2000 (Comm. Bill of Particulars, May 2012)

Away game at Ohio State (Petrosky Trial Testimony)

Based on Petrosky's trial testimony none of the dates make sense.  While child victims are granted considerable latitude in determining the date of their victimization, adult witnesses are supposed to get it right (especially when there is more than one witness).

The 2000 Season Ended on November 18.

The last game played at HOME on the 18th.

Thanksgiving fell on the Thursday between Nov 20 - 27, 2000.

Team finished 5-7 – no bowl game practices.

Ohio State game was played on September 23rd.

At the trial, the defense failed to raise the arguments about the dates being wrong, although they did raise it at the appeal.

Circumstances of the Crime
Despite McGettigan's admission that the changes in the testimony were insignificant, the changes were quite significant in almost every respect -- except the details of the crime itself.

Reporting of the Crime by the CDT and Freeh
The Freeh Report and the Centre Daily Times reported the trial testimony in line with the grand jury version and not the actual trial testimony of Petrosky.  The Freeh Report made reference to a July 2, 2012 interview (unamed) as its source of the trial testimony.  I jokingly opined that Freeh must have interviewed the reporter from the CDT.   The accounts are below.

First, both reports incorrectly stated that something was blocking the upper bodies.  Next, they stated that Calhoun approached Petrosky, which is opposite of the trial version of Petrosky entering the locker room and encountering Calhoun.   Petrosky made no references at trial to Calhoun's military service.  Freeh also incorrectly stated that multiple witnesses testified at trial.

However, one of the most critical inconsistencies of Petrosky's testimony was his statement that he called police after reading about the graduate assistant incident in the CDT.   Petrosky called the police in March 2011, long before the appearance of the McQueary story in the CDT on November 8, 2011.

Hearsay Ruling
I didn't cover this at the event, but it could be quite significant in its bearing on the NCAA sanctions.

Cleland allowed the hearsay testimony, in part, because two janitors would be called to testify, thus providing more than one account of the hearsay making it admissible under Commonwealth v. Barnes.  Cleland also ruled that "course of conduct" could be used to lay foundation for admissible hearsay. In other words, Sandusky had allegedly molested boys in the showers, so that laid the foundation as well.

The defense argued that Sandusky should first have to be proven guilty for crimes in the showers to establish the foundation.

The Commonwealth argued the hearsay admission should stand, in part, because Petrosky's testimony was buttressed by the testimony of Jay Witherite -- however, Witherite never testified and Judge Cleland apparently overlooked this fact in his appeal ruling.

Cleland's appeal ruling stated he may have erred on the admission of the hearsay and that superior court would decide it, but for the time being it is a "harmless error" because Sandusky was sentenced concurrently for the crimes.  However, this conviction cost PSU $60M in fines, NCAA probation, and its reputation.   It is not "harmless" by any stretch of the imagination.

This circus regarding the Victim 8 trial testimony, particularly the change of crime scene and the failure to testify by Witherite, needs to be fully investigated by the Special Prosecutor.

Breaking the Anchor Chain

Much like in the Duke case, incontrovertible evidence must surface that shows that the current narrative of the Sandusky Scandal is indeed false.

Overturning the janitor incident case could be some of that evidence if the Superior Court so rules.  Kane's investigation could also negate the janitor incident, which could provide solid ground to approach the NCAA because the NCAA sanctions hinge largely in part on that case.  

The second part of breaking the anchor chain is that a new narrative must replace the existing one.  Again, the Kane investigation could indeed provide the new narrative and the new Attorney General stated that "no stone will be left unturned."

Those stones are The Second Mile and the PSU Board of Trustees (and I have reports planned for both groups).

Full presentation will be posted in the future at and/or

Thursday, April 18

Upon Further Review, This Friday, April 19 at Days Inn, State College

WHAT: Debunk common myths and reveal unreported truths of the Jerry Sandusky Scandal.  Dl

WHERE: Days Inn

240 South Pugh Street

State College, PA 16801

WHEN: Friday, April 19, 2013 

3:00pm to 5:30pm

WHO: Franco Harris, Former Penn State and Pittsburgh Steeler football player

Anthony Lubrano, Penn State Universi
ty Trustee

Rob Tribeck, Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship Legal Counsel

Ray Blehar, Analyst and Investigator

Eileen Morgan, Penn State University Alumnus, Technology and Research Analyst

John Ziegler, Documentary Filmmaker

Chip Minemyer, Executive Editor, Centre Daily Times

I will be previewing my upcoming report of the Jerry Sandusky investigation.

Hope to see you there.

Wednesday, April 17

PSU's Legal Dilemma in the Victim 6 Case

PSU's Board of Trustees finds itself between a rock and a hard place in its defense of Victim 6's lawsuit

Ray Blehar

When I first heard that Victim 6 was suing Penn State, I believed it was a lost cause.  Victim 6's (or more accurately, his mother's) claims of sexual abuse in 1998 were investigated by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) with no finding of sexual abuse.  Moreover, the Sandusky trial found that the defendant was not guilty of indecent assault in the Victim 6 case, but was found guilty of lesser grooming type crimes.

The recent ruling by Judge Anita Brody was a bit of a head scratcher as well.   The judge ruled the trial should proceed, despite PSU's argument that it should wait until the trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were concluded (to determine if the men were guilty of child endangerment and other crimes).   But as we've learned in the Sandusky case, the Pennsylvania judicial system works in mysterious ways.  A complex child sex abuse case speeds through the system, while a case of a summary offense and perjury is continuously put on hold.

Despite my disagreement with the judge's ruling in this case, the lawsuit by Howard Janet is a brilliant legal  move.

The PSU BOT has already given responsibility to the Subcommittee on Legal to provide settlements to Sandusky's victims.   In that resolution, PSU admitted they were "liable for injuries suffered by such persons relating to the actions of Gerald Sandusky."

Rather than settle for the chump change that PSU is willing to pay all comers with a halfway legitimate complaint, Howard Janet is going for the brass ring -- and he can demand the moon and get it.  Why?  Just take a look at his witness list....

First witness for the plaintiff: Kenneth Frazier

Kenneth Frazier, at the last BOT meeting in Hershey, stated that PSU was responsible for the crimes that occurred on the PSU campus.  As for 1998, Frazier stated:  "“The fact of the matter is, those documents say what they say, and no amount of hand-waving will ever change what those documents say.”

In effect, Frazier's support of the Freeh Report's findings that Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz should have known about Sandusky's behavior in 1998 and acted more earnestly strongly supports the case of Victim 6.   Frazier also pointed to the handwritten note of Gary Schultz as more evidence that PSU knew about the incident, as he emphasized that the note said "had to be genital contact."

Second witness for the plaintiff: Louis Freeh

Louis Freeh's team authored the report that stated PSU officials should have known about Sandusky's behavior in 1998 and because of their knowledge, should have changed Sandusky's retirement package and banned Sandusky from the facilities.  Freeh's team made the "independent discovery" of the e-mail evidence that demonstrated that PSU officials were fully aware of the 1998 investigation and concealed the information from the PSU BOT.  Freeh also noted that the PSU BOT did not execute proper oversight of senior officials and maintain an environment of accountability at PSU.

Third witness for the plaintiff:  Keith Eckel

Keith Eckel's testimony will be short and to the point.  He'll be asked to stand by his statement:  "The decision of the trustees was not based on the legality. It was based on what we believed was right for the university at that moment and moving forward."   As his statement applied to the firing of coach Paterno, shouldn't it also hold true for compensating Victim 6?

Penn State's Defense Dilemma

Penn State hoped to kick the can down the road - into 2014 - and the conclusion of the Spanier, Curley, and Schultz trials to avoid having to make a defense that would run counter to its current position of standing behind the Freeh Report that "reasonably concluded" that PSU was responsible for letting Sandusky abuse children for over a decade.   

Moreover, PSU would likely (grudgingly) point out the DPW and CYS had cleared Sandusky in 1998 and that the University had no reason to believe that Sandusky was abusing children.

The University likely would point out that its own police department investigated the case and found there was nothing there.  And, it would point out that the Centre County District Attorney also decided there was no abuse in the case.

PSU does not want to have to defend itself in this case - no way, no how.

Go for it, Howard.  

We'll get the popcorn ready.

Tuesday, April 9

1998 Revisited and Other Ponderings

by Wendy Silverwood

A compilation of comments and questions from across the “boards”

The “PSU as villain” script had to be started for a specific reason. It was never supported by the facts, especially with respect to the 1998 incident, in which Centre County Children and Youth Services along with an investigator from PaDPW were involved. Curiously we find Nils Frederickson, PA OAG Acting Director of Communications, banging out the error filled script for the 1998 investigation in his Nov. 5, 2011 press release. Once the decision was made by the PA Office of Attorney General to turn this into PSU as the “bad guy”, everything else simply dropped off the radar.

It was no longer about Sandusky and his horrendous crimes, it was now about a grand PSU “conspiracy” that the Attorney General decided must have happened to “cover up” Sandusky’s activities. Let’s cut across the media roar, turn down the volume and really listen to what actually went on.  

Fundamentally this “cover up” didn’t exist 17 months ago and it still doesn’t exist today.

Perhaps someone wanted or needed or even insisted this come out of the gate as a giant Penn State “cover-up”. It could possibly be viewed as being devised by an individual or a group, e.g. the Surmas, with the goal of bringing PSU to its knees as an institution, settling old scores, wresting control and/or seeing petty vendettas through it.

Sandusky’s own loathsome conduct, especially given his status as an agent of the county and an executive director of a state licensed children’s charity became secondary. So instead of trying a case against a preferential child sexual offender to remedy criminal acts, it’s about bringing down PSU for possible political reasons.

We have $42 million and counting for “public relations” and crisis management, a $60 million hammering by the NCAA, an $8 million sham “investigation”, a banner-toting plane flying over campus for 3 days and enough high-priced consultants, PR hacks, compliance experts and second lawyers for the first lawyers that the issue is not Sandusky who culled his victims from a state licensed entity, but PSU and its “culture problems”. 

This all makes zero sense.  Problem is, nothing’s made sense.

The McQueary testimony makes no sense. The Freeh Report makes no sense. The NCAA sanctions make no sense. The “moral responsibility” statement by Noonan makes no sense. Freeh’s grandstanding press conference makes no sense. None of the facts line up for a “Conspiracy of Silence” to “protect the football program”.  

Looking at this more clearly and focusing on everything from the timeline of the investigation to Seasock’s bizarre conclusions argues that somebody was in a big hurry to get the 1998 investigation over with. 

That in and of itself should give us all cause for alarm.

The use of Counselor John Seasock in 1998 to contradict Dr. Chamber’s findings is puzzling. Seasock knows who involved him, and other than possibly of Sandusky, he is the only one who does. So when he doesn’t make an appearance for the Defense despite the Defense have a written, signed contemporaneous “report” known to have been provided to the Centre County DA, it raises a question. Is there a possibility that there is an individual or individuals in Centre County who has/have the most to lose if it would be publicly revealed who set up the Seasock evaluation and has/have managed somehow to keep it quiet?

Only someone at the county level of government would have had the familiarity with Seasock’s brand of “compliance”, familiarity with Ray Gricar, familiarity with Sandusky and familiarity with The Second Mile.

What is troubling is that whoever was responsible for recruiting and hiring John Seasock to evaluate the victim has received ZERO scrutiny. 

Another troubling aspect.

Why did the PA OAG direct Freeh to stay away from University Park Police Chief Tom Harmon? He was the person most directly at the center of the 1998 investigation. Freeh was tasked with looking into exactly what “went wrong” at PSU and he can’t speak to the one person at the center of everything?  A long-term former head of a large police department cannot be interviewed in an “independent” investigation? 

Does not make sense.

The person who put Freeh in place did so knowing that he would reach the “right”
result, and that
Freeh would abide by the Attorney General’s rules and not put anyone in an awkward position by attempting to talk to people with actual knowledge of what they were being asked. So why did Freeh operate in tandem with the AG’s office?

Even Sara Ganim’s headlines’ promoted the prevailing narrative yet demanded corrections when new information surfaced. Those corrections, however, never materialized. 

More questions.

Why is Investigator Jerry Lauro of PaDPW getting a free pass? Clearly CYS and PA DPW are at fault for the 1998 situation. Perhaps because they had such a cushy relationship with The Second Mile they cannot or will not ever admit to their responsibility. Why wasn’t The Second Mile immediately turned upside down by the State? The PA OAG has oversight of non-profits in the Commonwealth; visiting The Second Mile offices did not require a subpoena and could have swiftly been dealt with.  Why hasn’t CYS & DPW been a focal point for the indignation about Sandusky? 

Where is the outrage at these agencies and why are no officials taken to task?

Taking on a hugely popular and politically connected entity like The Second Mile or those politicos that create for-profit juvenile prisons and the ensuing “Kids For Cash” scandal has not particularly been PA DPW’s strong suit. 

What does this tell us about the very systems we have in place to protect our kids?


We can only hope that Kathleen Kane’s office goes back to 1998 – and interviews the CYS head; the CYS intermediary; the DPW “supervisor”, who supposedly issued the interview order; Jerry Lauro; Victim Number 6's mom; Victim Number 6, to the extent he has any independent memory of the “incident”; retired Detective Schreffler; Officer Ralston; retired PSU Chief Tom Harmon; John Seasock and Dr. Chambers. 

And then begin to carefully and clearly connect the dots…