Wednesday, September 25

In case you missed it, 9/20 CDT Ad for March4Truth

Dear Penn State Alumni, Students, Staff, and Friends



In November 2011, when the one sided, prosecutorial document, known as a grand jury presentment was released, it not only was used to indict Jerry Sandusky, but PSU as well.  Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley was put on administrative leave, head football coach Joe Paterno was terminated, and University President Graham Spanier was put in the position of having to resign because the Board of Trustees (BOT) was unwilling to support him. These three men were relieved of their duties without due process.  Moreover, the BOT had no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of these individuals.

In the ensuing eight months, the BOT did nothing to defend PSU.  Instead, it worked with the NCAA and the firm of Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan to cover for its own mistakes and place blame on PSU’s “football culture.”  When Louis Freeh provided his (now discredited) report on July 12, 2012, the trustees praised his work and used it to again condemn PSU.

‘Today’s comprehensive report is sad and sobering in that it concludes that at the moment of truth, people in positions of authority and responsibility did not put the welfare of children first.  The Board of Trustees, as the group that has paramount accountability for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the University, accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred.’

This raises the question: How do these Trustees, who ‘accept full responsibility for the failures that occurred’ and who accepted bearing ultimate responsibility for Sandusky’s crimes, still retain their positions and duties on the Penn State Board?  

The Board terminated Paterno and Spanier because they lost ‘confidence in their ability to lead.’  Since the Board admitted they failed in their oversight and governance, why are they still leading and running this University?  Many of the Penn State stakeholders, that is, the faculty, alumni, students, and supporters, have virtually zero confidence in the Board’s ability to lead.  Therefore, based on the Board’s yardstick, all of the seats of the November 9, 2011 Trustees should be revoked.

The BOT, as an entity, wrongfully placed the blame for Sandusky’s crimes on PSU.   This dishonest act has enabled the continued abuse of Pennsylvania’s children by not focusing the attention of the scandal where it belongs – on PA’s child protection system.  President Erickson and the BOT have stated that PSU will become a national leader in the prevention of child abuse. However, by these individuals refusing to acknowledge the problems within PA’s child protection system that not only enabled Sandusky's crimes, but continues to enable crimes today, the notion of PSU being a national leader is a farce.   If you refuse to provide leadership in your "home" state, how can you lead the nation?

Instead, they are paying out tens of millions of dollars in settlements in an attempt to make the public believe the Sandusky scandal has been resolved.  Fortunately, the TRUTH cannot be hidden by the underhanded maneuvers of the Board because they can’t control the legal system.

As the investigative and judicial processes unfold, the TRUTH is being revealed – and it looks nothing like the grand jury presentment or the Freeh Report that have been blindly accepted and promoted by the Trustees, the media and the general public.  To wit:

  • Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina claimed in a recent interview on 60 Minutes Sports that he found NO evidence that Joe Paterno conspired to cover up Sandusky’s crimes.
  • To date, it has yet to be proven that Penn State, as an institution, is legitimately culpable for any of the crimes of Jerry Sandusky.  Several allegations made against PSU officials have already been disproven.
  • Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) reached a settlement despite having publicly stated that he did NOT blame Penn State, but instead blamed Central Mountain High School.
  • Sandusky’s adopted son Matt, who came forward during the trial, reached a settlement even though his statements regarding when the abuse ended are contradictory and the abuse, of which PSU was never informed, occurred before 1997.
  • The 1998 allegations (Victim 6) were fully investigated by local law enforcement and child welfare authorities and determined to be “unfounded” by the Department of Public Welfare.  This was a colossal failure of PA’s abysmal child protection system. 
  • Through four different proceedings, the state’s key witness, Mike McQueary, who was deemed “extremely credible,” has yet to tell a consistent story about what happened in February 2001 regarding Victim 2.
  • The allegations concerning Victim 2 were reported by Penn State to The Second Mile, Sandusky’s employer, and, based on sworn testimony and other evidence, possibly reported to Centre County Children and Youth Services by Penn State. 
  • Jack Raykovitz, Director of The Second Mile and mandated reporter, did not report the 2001 incident to authorities.
  • The crime witnessed by the janitor involving Victim 8 has been disproven, based on physical and temporal (time) evidence.  The eye-witness janitor was not a PSU employee at the time of the incident and could not have witnessed the crime.
  • During the investigation of Sandusky, the Office of Attorney General learned of the 1998 incident by June of 2009, yet did not follow up on that lead until November or December of 2010.  Had the investigation been conducted properly, Sandusky could have been arrested by the summer of 2009. 
  • Louis Freeh did NOT discover Gary Schultz’s “secret” files, as he claimed.  Both Schultz and Kimberly Belcher turned over the files to the Office of Attorney General.  The existence of the files was well known – they were not “secret.”  Nor did Freeh “make independent discovery” of the e-mail evidence in the case in March 2012.  According to OAG computer forensics expert Braden Cook, the PSU IT Department (John Corro) turned over the files in March 2011.
  • Sandusky’s one-on-one access to children, not access to facilities, was the critical enabler of his crimes.  That access was provided by The Second Mile – NOT Penn State.

Based on the above facts, it is quite evident that the entire narrative about this scandal is false. The Board of Trustees breached its fiduciary duties by accepting guilt before any legal basis for Penn State’s culpability was established.  The Board should acknowledge former prosecutor Frank Fina’s claim that Joe Paterno was NOT part of a cover-up and apologize for its unwarranted firing of Paterno.

The Trustees revoked the duties of three honorable Penn State employees who collectively worked 120 years for the University, yet the same rules and criteria for termination somehow do not apply to them.  How ironic is that?  Clearly, Penn State has a culture problem.  This problem, however, is not with the football program but with the members of the Board of Trustees.

This is a fight for the heart and soul of Penn State and we will not move forward without the TRUTH.  JOIN OUR MARCH!

For The Glory,
Eileen Morgan – PSU, Aerospace Eng., Class of 1990 (
Ray Blehar – PSU, Smeal MBA, Class of 2008 ( )


  1. Great News!

    Hear is the placard I will bring with me:


    1. Did Paterno truthfully testify that that MM made a complaint of a sexual nature regarding JS and a boy in the shower? Yes or No.

    2.Did Schultz truthfully testify that MM may have said JS grabbed a boys genitals in the PSU showers? Yes or No.

    3. If so, was it acceptable for Schultz to not investigate it? Yes or No.

    4. Why was Curley "uncomfortable" presenting these facts to anyone other than JS? Was he uncomfortable with this. Yes or No.

    5. Why did not one of these men start an investigation, or even learn the boy's identity to determine if he was safe/alright? You can expound on this one, I've waited a long time for your response.

    1. JJ, Ray and others have answered all of these questions better than I could but I do have one for you regarding question number 4:
      Why do you continue to misquote the Curley E Mail? the actual quote stated that he was uncomfortable with talking to everyone EXCEPT the person involved ... why the need to change the quote? The plan was not changed except they were now also going to confront Sandusky as well.

    2. JJ,
      All of your questions have been answered. From this point on, any repeats will be deleted.

      Just so were clear:
      1. Grand jury testimony is inadmissible because Paterno was not cross-examined and had no chance to clarify his statement, which started with "I don't know what you would call it...." Now, you left that part off, but that's a rather important phrase because it means everything after it is conjecture.

      2. Schultz did not testify to that. I will post his testimony, then I expect you to NEVER misquote it again.

      Page 225: "I don't recall what McQueary specifically reported"
      Page 225/226: "...I had only formed the impression that I had based on kind of what I observed of Jerry and the kind of horsing around that he does."
      Page 13/McQueary: "I couldn't see his actual hands."

      If McQueary couldn't see Sandusky's hands thus he did NOT tell Schultz, in any fashion, that he saw grabbing of genitals.

      3. No, Schultz is not an investigator, thus it was not acceptable for him to investigate it. But don't take my word for it. Here's the law. The Sr. VP of Finance & Business at PSU isn't on the county's investigative team.

      4. No, he was uncomfortable talking TO persons other than Sandusky first. He made no statement he was uncomfortable with the facts.

      5. Under CAPTA, Pennsylvania's Statutes, and Pennsylvania Public Welfare Code, the identify of the victim and his family is confidential information that is held by the police, child welfare, and the DA. Wendell Courtney recalls that PSU contacted CYS. Schultz also believed that PSU contacted CYS. In other word, the two most senior officials involved in the 2001 incident recall it being turned over to authorities. That being the case, Courtney would have advised all involved that there was no need to identify the child.

      Your questions are now answered, with citations of testimony and relevant laws. Anything further on this will be deleted.

    3. Ray,

      I honestly appreciate you taking the time to respond to my 5 questions. I will not challenge you, as you have stated your facts and theories, and that is all that I had asked.

      Reasonable people can disagree; it happens all the time. I appreciate the fact that you have not deleted posts that have challenged your theories; it would be easy to delete them.

      Below are my reactions to your responses. Iam not asking you to respond to my statements (or anyone else, for that matter). I simply post them as observations.

      1, Yes, JP statement was inadmissible. I never stated otherwise. That does not change the fact that he said the complaint was sexual.

      I believe your statement about not knowing how to characterize it refers to fondling, not the sexual nature of the complaint, after rereading his testimony. But I understand your point.

      2. I reread the testimony per your link. GS testified he was under the impression that it might have been JS grabbing a childs genitals. Again, that was GS's characterization of what he thought happened after speaking to MM.

      3. You are correct, I misstated it. It should read why he should not have initiated an investigation by contacting authorities, not investigating himself. This is the purview of LE or CYS. Telling them was my point.

      4. I reread TC's email. He stated he was uncomfortable speaking with anyone other than the persons involved. Who was the other person (anyone else?). He, as you know, had discussed going to authorites in earlier emails. He then stated that they would report it only if JS did not admit he needed professional help for his "problem".

      5. Wendell Courtney's recollection would be relevant. I agree. And GS testified that some sort of investigation was being investigated by le or CYS. But he was vague, and we know that CYS/LE were never contacted.

      Again, you are correct that GS testified he thought it had been reported. It is a matter of interpretation.


    4. per 4, even after re-reading Curley's E-mail, you're STILL misquoting it. He wrote he was uncomfortable going to EVERYONE, but Sandusky, not uncomfortable going to anyone but Sandusky. You cannot simply interchange everyone with anyone. They aren't synonyms.

  2. Which version of MM are you referring too?

  3. I am referring to the MM' who made a complaint that Joe Paterno testified was of a sexual nature involving a 60 year old man with a boy in the Penn State showers.

  4. JJ...I am sorry I have read the Tim Curley Email several times and I somehow missed the part where the original plan was for the athletic director to do a criminal investigation. Please show me where I can find this.
    As for not finding out the identity of the boy, exactly how were they supposed to do this? Please tell me. I believe even Louis Freeh claimed they put the child in even futher danger by talking to Sandusky. So tell us JJ, how should this have been done?
    Do you think the boy would have given a different version of what happened that night. Eleven years later he is on record as saying he was not abused that night.

  5. Succintly, what was the original plan that changed after TC spoke with JP and became uncomfortable with?

    PSU did not have to determine the identity of the boy. That would be done by authorities. GS had been through the drill, he correctly stayed out of the 1998 investigation.

    Victim 2 changing his story is irrelevant. JP and GS testified about what they were told at the time. They never spoke to victim 2. In fact, PSU, via TC, told JS that they didn't want to know the identity of the child. After being made aware of a sexual complaint (JP) and being under the impression that it may have involved JS grabbing the genitals of a child.(GS)

    Again, PSU, via TC, stating affirmatively that it did not want to know who the unknown boy was in its shower.

    1. Original Plan: TC to talk with Jerry on Friday. If not cooperative, report to DPW.

      Second Plan: Talk to Jerry. Tell chair of Second Mile. If not cooperative, report to DPW.

      Note that the second plan was hatched around 2/25. Why the lag? Likely waiting to hear from CYS. I suspect Tom Harmon was the intermediary for Schultz and gave the go ahead to talk to Jerry (similar chain of events in 1998).

      The 2/25 discussion is not about reporting suspected abuse because that already happened. The discussion is about what PSU should do about an emeritus professor who is using the facilities in a manner that could be misconstrued (so they thought) by an observer. To make an analogy, what if a female emeritus professor took to nude sunbathing with teenage girls that she mentored. Not illegal, but not something you want happening in a courtyard of PSU.

      Not important to know who she sunbathed with, but important for her to stop doing it in public places with teenage girls. Similarly, Sandusky's showering with kids after a workout was not considered criminal, but PSU didn't want it to go on. In Sandusky's case, they had an intermediary to go to in The Second Mile. And if they didn't get satisfaction there, then they could get heavy handed and go to DPW about it.

      I would say that the timelines very much support this scenario, particularly that PSU was required to make a report in 48 hours from the Paterno meeting with Curley -- which would have been Monday morning. It's rather obvious that Schultz would have instructed Harmon to make the report. The rest of the deliberations are strictly PSU internal matters.

    2. Note that the second plan was hatched around 2/25. Why the lag? Likely waiting to hear from CYS. I suspect Tom Harmon was the intermediary for Schultz and gave the go ahead to talk to Jerry (similar chain of events in 1998).

      Harmon explicitily testified that GS never told him about the second incident, and that he would have started an investigation if he did.

      The only contact I see, unless I am missing something here, is GS emailing Harmon to see if there was access to the 1998 report.

    3. What about all the stuff you don't see? The E-mail where Schultz asked Harmon for the 1998 report is not included in the exhibits, so we can't see what else was in there, if anything. Harmon turned state's witness to testify against C/S/S. Why? What did have to be preotected from? Last thing you don't know, the Centre County CYS knew about the 2001 event. I'm don't know if they knew about if from the 2nd Mile or directly from PSU, but they knew. That's not public knowledge, I go that from a personal contact. I'm told there's documentation of their knowledge to boot. Hopefully that documentation will come out publicly some way at some time in the future.

    4. Harmon is lying about not being told about 2001 and that's abundantly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

      As mhentz said (and I've said previously), why have we never seen the Schultz request for the 1998 file? An e-mail from Schultz to Harmon is referenced in the Freeh Report (End Note 304: Schultz confidential file note), but we've never seen it nor has the prosecution told us what it asked.

      All we have is Exhibit 5D, Titled: Subject: Incident in 1998.

      If this is a response to a request from Schultz, why isn't it Subject: Re: Incident in 1998 (indicating a response to a request).

      So, are we to believe, out of the blue, that Harmon up and wrote an e-mail stating, "Regarding the incident in 1998 involving the former coach, I checked and the document is in our imaged archives."

      Harmon testified Schultz DID NOT ask him for the file. If Schultz didn't ask for the file, then why is Harmon checking on it? HELLO!

      Because Schultz told him about what just happened and Harmon's reminded Schultz of the 1998 case.

  6. Wow, Jonathan is really trolling these boards a lot lately. I wonder if the folks in Harrisburg that are paying this esteemed Parliamentary Procedure expert extra this month because they're worried about what Ray is digging up.