Saturday, July 27

More than just a wrong date in the janitor incident.

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

Ray Blehar

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

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

1) The season ended on Nov 18, 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  1. Seems that Mr Calhoun's family or estate has grounds for legal action against all those who dragged him into this mess. Perhaps Witherite could work with AG Kane's office to get to the facts AND to redeem himself somewhat for his role in creating the apparent falsehood that Calhoun witnessed and did nothing else about a horrific event.

  2. To present data as fact that can neither be verified nor reproduced is Fraud (almost by definition). To do so knowing it is hearsay is malicious...the intent is to damage or swindle.

    At first view, the Janitor story could be smelled-out as a possible Hoax by a sophomore journalism student. It was a story bandied about for 10 years with an unknown amount of distortion and embellishment. There is no eyewitness, contemporary report (or explanation why the anonymous Childline wasn't called) and an ever changing account of events (all of which failed a physical configuration audit of the facility). In the real working world, an event like this would be prime fodder for break room gossip, and would be all over Central PA in a few days. That did not happen. And when did anyone ever hear of a member of a powerful public works union being afraid of being fired for anything?? Indeed, are there any real journalists back East?

    What Freeh did is what we in the Physical Sciences call "Dry Labing". The data is fabricated. This type of Fraud is usually discovered when an independent investigator attempts to repeat the experiment and is unable to reproduce the data. The scientist who tried to get away with it is ruined for life and may be subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.

    The Fraud the Ken Frazier and Merck committed is called "Cherry Picking". The fraudulent data package they submitted to FDA for Vioxx in 1999/2000 intentionally omitted unfavorable results from clinical studies. This Fraud resulted in the premature death of 88,000 Americans. It took 9 years of analysis for investigators to grasp the true depth of that Fraud.

    Another type of Fraud is when a vendor is, say, supposed to take ten samples and do ten analyses, but only does seven, but bills the customer for ten. The data for the three missing tests are generated using an interpolating polynomial or some other statistical strategem. This was actually a fairly common Fraud until customers started sending technical people to witness the tests. I don't thing that a "should cost" analysis was ever done for the Freeh report. PSU certainly had the expertise internally to generate several options for restructuring their business model and risk reduction plan based upon industry best practices.

    1. Thanks, Gregory.
      There is real "fraud" in this case. Freeh will face charges.

      Thanks for your support,

    2. It has been my observation that those with even a basic awareness of the scientific method tend to have the same general view regarding this case when they take the time to look (i.e., striking lack of investigative rigor and/or resulting poorly supported conclusions). As I've seen noted elsewhere, the primary ingredient of the so-called Penn State kool-aid might be training in proper evaluative techniques.

  3. Now the Freehbasers are claiming that since you didn't provide a motive for Petrosky to lie, they assume he had no motive to lie, and therefore he did not lie. It was just an error in the dates. Small oops. No biggie. They got the bastard anyway and it doesn't matter how. You simply cannot win with these people.

    1. mhentz,
      LOL! The Freehbasers are desperate now. Even they can see the story is starting to crumble. They know their time is short.

      They just got a preview of what Kane is going to do. They know the jig is up.

      Thanks for your support!

  4. Hi Ray -

    the huge number of errors, lies, false testimony, changed testimony, dropped investigations, ignored information, innuendo that damages the innocent, the officials that seem to (with regularity) look the other way...

    it cannot be accidental. but is it all connected? or coincidental?

    what is the rabbit hole going to look like?


    1. These things aren't happenstance or coincidences, that's for sure.

      All connected...TSM, PSU, and Harrisburg.

      It will all be exposed in time.


    2. How big of a role does Sandusky even play in this?? Could he possibly be somewhat of a fall guy in whatever the scheme is??? He certainly is convincing in his incredulousness of the accusations by the young men!

    3. Sandusky was the top fund raiser for TSM and a valuable asset that TSM (and the Commonwealth) protected for many years. He became the tool that Tom Corbett used to take down Spanier.

    4. Ray -

      you think it is entirely about spanier? how does TSM fit in if it is entirely about Spanier? or is there more to it, and Spanier just happened to tick off Corbett enough that he's let his ire topple the house of cards?

    5. Yes to the last point. Corbett was "infuriated" at Spanier and took a chance on toppling the house of cards to get him.