Mark Dent's Hatchet Job

The e-mail exchange I had with Mark Dent proves that the piece Dent wrote was an intentional hatchet job and it was illogical to boot.

By
Ray Blehar

My brother sent me a text message yesterday, while I was traveling back from Mississippi, that I had made the front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  I returned the text with a question "About Franco?"

I then pulled up the story to read the highly inaccurate account of the information I relayed to Mark Dent around Memorial Day of this year.  It read as follows:

In State College, Mr. Blehar attempted to discredit the testimony of some of Sandusky's victims, saying they exaggerated how small and young they were when they were sexually violated by Sandusky. In a later email exchange, Mr. Blehar wrote, "[prosecutor Joe] McGettigan coached many of the witnesses into changing their stories." He said his purpose of dissecting their testimony was to draw attention to Pennsylvania's child protective services.

There are numerous inaccuracies in these three sentences - a feat in itself.  

First, and I made this very clear to Mark Dent, I was focusing on the prosecution's manipulation of witness testimony.  Note, that I said witness testimony and not victim testimony.  My presentation in State College also addressed the likely manipulation of the testimony of witnesses Anthony Sassano and Ronald Petrosky. My upcoming report will address manipulation of defense witness testimony as well.

Second, the focus was clearly on the prosecutor's actions, not those of the victims.  Manipulation is commonly done in trials and is more commonly referred to as "leading the witness" or "asking leading questions."  Judge Cleland noted that McGettigan got away with this quite frequently at the trial.

Finally, it does not make sense for a person to discredit victim testimony if their intention is "to draw attention to Pennsylvania's child protection services."

I would like to say I'm surprised that this passage made it by an editor - but I'm not.  This type of journalism and worse has been typical in the reporting on the Sandusky Scandal.

E-mails were quite clear

The following is the e-mail exchange with Mark Dent.  It is clear that Dent, who stated he understood the concept of anchoring, intentionally ignored the entire theme of my State College presentation.

Mark Dent <mdent@post-gazette.com>	May 23
to rayblehar Ray,This is Mark Dent of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. I'm working on a story about Franco Harris and as part  of it I'm discussing the Upon Further Review panels that he hosts. I went to the one he had in State College  last month, and you spoke there. I wanted to ask you something about part of your presentation: At one  point, you were talking about Victim 4 and discussing his testimony and how the height that he said he  was was likely inaccurate. You also pointed out that McGettigan called the victims little kids and then you  showed that the victims were between ages 13-16 for the most part when the abuse took place. Why did  you choose to dissect these matters? Is there a particular point you are trying to make by pointing this out?  I didn't quite understand when you were discussing it there. Thanks, Mark 412-439-3791 Ray Blehar  May 23 to Mark Mark, From the publishing of the grand jury presentment and through the trial, the OAG's communications were such to "anchor" a narrative in the minds of the public that "little children" were being abused  on Penn State's campus.  This is a false narrative. In the first part of the presentation, I showed that based on the trial verdicts over half (24) the crimes  occurred off campus.  Only 15 counts were specific to PSU's campus.  6 counts (Victim 4) were on  and off campus.  So, the characterization of these crimes were tied to Sandusky's access to PSU  facilities - as Louis Freeh claimed - isn't supported by the verdicts. Near the end, I pointed out how Prosecutor McGettigan coached witnesses into saying they were  "little kids" and how small and weak they were.   Victim 4 was nearly 14 years old the first time he  showered with Sandusky - he was not a little kid.  Nor was he four feet tall when he was 14!   Victim 7,  who was 10 or 11 at the time he met Sandusky, said Sandusky was 3 or 4 times larger than he was.   Photographs show that not to be the case.  McGettigan suggested to the janitor that the "young boy"  he saw was waist or chest high.  The janitor corrected him and said the person he saw was shoulder  height -- a teenager.   If you believe that Victim 2 is the person filing the lawsuit as Victim 2, then he was  14.5 years old at the time McQueary witnessed the incident in the shower.  Again, Victim 2 was  characterized as a 10 year old or a pre-pubescent boy.   Juror Joshua Harper was swayed by McGettigan's tactics at the trial.  Harper said, "It is so offensive to  corrupt a little boy."  However, as my chart showed, the youngest victims had only one interaction  with Sandusky (and except for Victim 10, whose story has problems), there were no charges  of indecent assault in those cases. McGettigan coached many of the witnesses into changing their stories.  I will cover all of those instances  in an upcoming report.  And he didn't just coach the victims, but he coached the cop (Sassano) and  the caseworker (Dershem). I've enclosed the presentation for your review. Regards, Ray Ray Blehar <r May 23 to Mark Mark, One other thing -- in our society, crimes against children and the elderly are considered particularly heinous.   The emphasis on the crimes against Victim 2 and Victim 8 were characterized as such.  The OAG's icing  on the cake was to include an elderly man, who know suffers from dimentia, as the witness to the V8 crime.    The Victim 8 crime is rather implausible as testified to by Petrosky.  Petrosky's trial testimony was so  questionable that I suspect that's why Freeh used the much more believable story from the grand jury  presentment in his report. Mark Dent <mdent@post-gazette.com> May 24 to me Ray, I understand what you said about the "anchoring." I was just curious as to why you believe this is  relevant and what cause you believe this may further? Thanks Ray Blehar < May 24 to Mark Its relevant because it deflects attention away from the people who really enabled Sandusky's abuse.  DPW. CYS, and the Second Mile were at fault, not PSU.  PSU reported the 2001 incident and the report  was ignored. Ray Blehar  May 24 to Mark The goal is to get the Child Protective Services fixed in the state of Pennsylvania. After the DPW or CYS  are contacted abuse continues to occur in 50 percent of the cases. Ray Blehar  May 24 to Mark That is based on a 2008 Health and Human Services report of a review of the Department of Public Welfare

The exchange clearly shows that Dent understood many details behind the presentation and had the presentation at his disposal, yet chose to write something that was not only taking the presentation out of context -- but never even mentioned the context, which was "anchoring" nor did he bother to cite any of the facts about Pennsylvania's failing child protection system.

Grace period?

Dent later goes on to state:


But as Penn State continues to move on from the Sandusky scandal and Mr. Harris and his "team" veer further toward personal vendettas and the questioning of Sandusky victims, how long can the grace period endure?

This particular passage was used in transition to the lone voice among former players, Chuck Franzetta, who seems to get a lot of press attention for his support of the Board's decisions on Paterno and the Sandusky scandal.  Apparently, Chuck's questioning of Franco's motives are, according to Mark Dent, a signal that the "grace period" for speaking out against the rush to injustice against Penn State and Paterno is on the horizon.

Dent has that wrong too.

It is only a matter of time before the truth of the scandal is revealed.  

And it will be proven those who are questioning the actions of not only the PSU BOT, but everything and everyone else involved with this scandal are doing so in the best interest of Pennsylvania's children.