Tuesday, September 24


SEPTEMBER, 24, 2013 Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) is pleased that the NCAA, at the behest of Senator George Mitchell, has revisited the unprecedented and improper sanctions that it levied on Penn State in July 2012.

“Perhaps recognizing the enormity of its error and the recently filed lawsuit in Centre County Pennsylvania, particularly in light of the thorough debunking of the Freeh Report, the NCAA has taken the first step toward repairing some of the damage that it and Penn State’s leadership have inflicted upon Penn State,” said PS4RS spokesperson Maribeth Roman Schmidt.

While PS4RS does not agree that Penn State ever required an Athletic Integrity Monitor, nor that the football program is in any way responsible for Jerry Sandusky's crimes, the members of PS4RS are grateful that Senator Mitchell recommended this reduction in sanctions. We are extremely happy for the student-athletes who will be afforded the opportunity of a great Penn State education.

Rob Tribeck, Chair of the PS4RS Legal Task Force, who met with representatives of Senator Mitchell’s team in May 2013 on behalf of PS4RS, expressed additional gratitude. “Senator Mitchell has recognized the need for a reduction, if not elimination, of these outrageous sanctions. This action today, while not completely eliminating the sanctions, is a significant step forward to recognizing that the sole basis of the sanctions was the Freeh Report’s wholly unsupported conclusions regarding Coach Paterno and the football program.” Tribeck continued, “The Freeh Report has been completely discredited by each and every qualified person to review it, including representatives of the Pennsylvania Attorney General and the lead prosecutor of Jerry Sandusky. This action today confirms what many have believed since July 2012: the Freeh Report’s conclusions were grossly flawed and improperly attributed responsibility to Coach Paterno and the football program.”

PS4RS remains committed to providing any additional support to Senator Mitchell or the NCAA in connection with its further review of these sanctions. To put this matter to rest, once and for all, the NCAA must rescind all sanctions and retract the offensive statements made about the Penn State culture.


  1. It is a mystery to me that good people can get that Freeh is a Cotton Mather, the famous official involved in the 1692 Salem Witch Trials, for the Penn State madness but fail to see beyond their parochial concerns with Joe Paterno. People are properly upset by mistreated of Joe Paterno based on bad evidence and faulty conclusions, but they accept bad evidence, such as the crazy janitor story, and faulty logic that was used against Jerry Sandusky. This included Mr. Ziegler. Over time he has backed down from Sandusky was guilty as hell but clever enough to fool everybody - the Clemente theory.- Then he said that Sandusky was innocent with respect to the more serious claims against him, and now he is at Sandusky simply has some mental defect. Eventually Ziegler and others have to come to grips with the thousand exposure years of silence from the accusers, the lack of any physical evidence, and the outrageous payoffs negotiated by lawyers hired to help with media.

    This case falls in line with the satanic cult and daycare hysteria of the 1980s. Once people buy into preposterous scenarios they stick with them. I reccoment to anyone with time to look intp these cases. Have a tissue ready to wipe away tears.

  2. People should have learn so much from the McMartin Pre-School in the 1980s, but the still media doesn't care and will do anything to find new content. I remember watching the HBO movie "Indictment: The McMartin Trial" when it came out while I was at PSU and thinking how horrible it was what the McMartin family was put through as I had never heard of the case before. Never in a million years did I think something similar would happen at my school. Obviously I know it was a movie and some things are exaggerated for movie purposes. But the basic premises of media misreporting and pack mentality, as well as gross prosecutorial misconduct have just been repeated again in with the Sandusky case.

  3. Actual innocence. Sandusky. Salem Witch trials. McMartin.

    Paterno, I received a complaint of a sexual nature, maybe fondling, of my former DC coordinator in the PSU shower, 60 years old, against a boy.

    Logic: Paterno didn't know it was of a sexual nature.

    Schultz ... Maybe a 60 year old man in the showers grabbing the genitals of a naked boy. Pandora's box, other children? In any event, not important.

    Curley ... Do not tell me the name of the boy in the shower. nothing criminal, so no investigation. Uncomfortable speaking to anyone other than Sandusky.

    At least Blehar and you are becoming honest as to your motives. 2 adult accounts of witnessing Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the PSU shower, last date 2001, nothing done until somebody out of this never never world starts a proper investigation.

    Yep, this is the way to go. Screw the kids. Sandusky (and the others) are the victims. I will now shed tears for all of them.

  4. JJ, you are regurgitating misinformation. "2 adult accounts" of witnessing Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the PSU shower. The 1 account based on the janitor heresay has been disproven as the janitor alleged to have witness this was not even employed by the University during the time frame it was supposed to have occured and was only conveyed through 1 witness without any additonal corroboration.

    The 2nd account was by McQueary based on a 2-3 second galnce through a mirror, whose story changes every time he is asked out it, does not match up with the testimony of a 3rd party (Dranov) he told it to the night it happend, and there is a statement by the actual "victim" saying that nothing happend that night.

    Also, under PA law at that time, Curley was not allowed to know the name of any victim of sexual abuse reported to him by a 3rd party. So even if he wanted to find it, he couldn't have.

    I'm not saying Sandusky is completely innocent as I don't have the information to support that statement, but certainly a number of the charges brought against are highly suspect.

    And one issue with cases of child abuse is the automatic presumption of guilt of the alleged perpetrator and those associated with him by the public for fear that if they ask for a fair trial and due process, they somehow don't care about the child victims and therefore indirectly enable futher abuse.

  5. Yes, the time frame for the janitor was wrong. You then take the leap to say the entire thing was a farce. Was the individual who spoke to the janitor, while he was crying, completely lying on the stand? All of the statements about being in Korea (which he fought in) and never seeing anything this bad made up? To what end? Was PSU fabricating the information? Prosecutors? The media? The only thing you established is the date of the report was wrong.

    Second, McQuery. He testified that he physically witnessed the assault. You point out inconsistencies. It was traumatic, no doubt. And there are variances in any recollection of an event 10 years ago.

    But that does not change the fact McQuery stated every single time that he viewed an assault.

    And Paterno substantiated his version, testifying it was a complaint of a sexual nature.

    Dranov is mentioned, but it would seem his father would be the important one, as that is whom MM spoke to after the incident. Further, Paterno buttresed this argument by explaining the nature of the complaint.

    Schultz ...After he finds out that something is going on, he calls the police chief to see if a report was made in 1998. It was, 95 pages. He testifies he didn't remember if a police report was done. Schultz testified that MM might have said that JS grabbed the boys genitals.

    Was he lying about this? And if there is the possibility that it was true, wouldn't you want to investigate it? Or is it acceptable to do nothing? Which is implicit in your argument.

    What did he mean by "pandora's box"? What did he mean by other children. To whom/what was he referring to? Why did he not mention that he kept a file on Sandusky, and direct his secretary to never open it?

    Your argument about Curley is unavailing. You mention PA law at the time to explain away his actions about the identity of the boy.

    If there is one consistent thread in this, it is that Curley absolutely ignored the law. Why would the identity issue be relevant? He did not want to know the identity of the boy, because he did not want to start an investigation. What other reason would he have to not locate the boy?

    Curley also testified that he was unaware of the 1998 investigation. A 95 page police report about the then DC abusing a boy, which subsequent emails confirmed he was completely aware of (We will tell JS we are aware of the 1998 investigation if he does not cooperate). Are you saying he didn't email this? That he wouldn't remember an investigation into the DC for sex abuse of a child?

    And if he believed nothing was wrong, why did he tell Second Mile that JS could not bring kids on campus?

    Shall I go on? This is about 10% of the issues, which you have obfuscated and ignored in your plight to exonerate people who ignored the law, acted outside the law, and showed no concern ... none...about child sex abuse possibly occuring on PSU property.

    And people like you who will defend these people (now, even Sandusky himself) to the grave.

    If my tone is strong, there is a reason. I have followed this since November 2011 and said nothing. I was hoping that eventually, the Paterno/Schultz/Curley/Sandusky defenders would acknowlege their culpability. I was wrong.

    I welcome your response to the issues identified above.

    1. Don't know anyone who has the time to correct all of the errors in your submittal - particularly since all of the correct information is contained in these pages.
      The reason Sandusky was told to stop bringing the 2nd Mile boys to the locker room was simple - it was to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
      McQueary was never consistent in any of his many statements and testimonies - Curley never testified that he was unaware of the 1998 inquiry

      The gaps in your knowledge about this situation are extremely difficult to deal with given the time and effort that has been put into this website. Everything is here - everything. If you want to have an intelligent debate you have to know what those of us who have written these pages know.

    2. Oh, I have read this webpage. I remeber very well your "Where is the perjury" article where Curley and Schultz perjured themselves (really, Curley couldn't rember a 1998 investigation that he referred to in a 2001 "investigation")?

      But to allay your concern about not having the time to address my post, ignore the above. I want to make this as simple and as painless for you as possible.

      I'll make this easy:

      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 ivestigation, 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.

      Where are the errors in these 5 simple questions? Why do you engage in nonsensical doublespeak instead of addressing these very simple facts?

      I eagerly anticipate your response.

    3. 1. McQueary himself testified that he did not go into any detail with Paterno over what he saw and he never told Paterno specifically that what he saw was sexual, only that it was wrong, way over the line, and he was very upset about it. Paterno may have added in the sexual nature comment himself given the circumstances or more likely we may be missing the context in which he said it. If you add a question mark...."it was a sexual nature?"...only then does the rest of Paterno's seemingly nonsensical testimony, as well as Jonelle Eschbach's further questioning (“and did he tell you where this INAPPROPRIATE activity took place?”) make any sense whatsoever. Re-read the testimony, including Eschbach's follow-up question (which is very important to understanding the context but has been completely overlooked in this entire sorry saga) but completely ignore "it was a sexual nature." You’ll find a far different picture is painted.

    4. 2. Reread the GJ testimony. The prosecutor was leading Schultz down a rabbit hole of suppositions. Schultz never testified that McQueary told him that Sandusky may have grabbed the kid's junk. He testified that he was told they were engaged in some kind of wrestling around and the impression he got is that Jerry might have grabbed the kid's junk. McQueary didn't say that to him, but it was an impression left on Schultz that it was a possibility. That's a far cry from "Jerry grabbed the kid’s junk."

      3. Schultz couldn't investigate it. He left for a two week vacation and left the matter in Curley's hands. That important detail was completely ignored by Freeh. Besides, he wasn't told there was anything criminal to investigate. He wasn’t told anything other than that Jerry was naked in the showers late at night wrestling around with some kid and it was creepy as hell. Creepy ain't necessarily illegal, y'know,. Otherwise we'd have to lock up half the citizens of the United States of America.

    5. 4. You've completely misquoted the Curley E-mail. It's easy to do and is something Freeh deliberately attempted to guide his readers into with his gross mischaracterizations of the entire e-mail chain. The exact quote is "I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved." "everyone" does not equate to "anyone" as you suggest in your post. The original plan was to not mention anything to Sandusky at all, but was to bust him behind his back to his handlers at the 2nd Mile, then involve the DPW if the 2nd Mile failed to handle the situation. They wanted to 2nd Mile to keep THEIR employee from taking THEIR kids into Penn State's showers. Curley felt busting JS behind his back was a rat bastard thing to do and felt it would be a better, more up front, more "humane" approach to let him know he was being busted to the 2nd Mile and even to give him the chance to tell his own side of the story. The others agreed. In this way, the "change in plan" was to actually do more than what was originally planned, not less, which explains why Spanier expressed admiration to Curley for his willingness "go a step further" and that it would make his conversation “all the more difficult.” The idea of getting the DPW involved was always a backup plan in the case Sandusky refused to cease his peculiar habit of showering with kids. In that case they wanted to get people involved with child care (people they believed had an opinion on the matter that Sandusky was much more likely to respect than their own) to explain to Jerry why his habit of showering with kids was inappropriate, unacceptable, and had to stop. That’s all. They never believed for a second at that point that Sandusky was a pedophile. Only that he was a kinda squirrelly, weird, creepy, touchy-feely kinda guy whose odd behavior was likely to lead to trouble down the line.

    6. 5. For one thing, start an investigation into what? No criminal behavior was reported to them. I love the argument about learning the boy’s identity and checking to see if he was alright. Exactly how were they supposed to do this? Exactly who at that point in time knew the kid’s identity? The kid himself (who was of course unknown)…and Sandusky himself. Maybe the 2nd Mile knew who he was as if Sandusky was checking the kids out of the 2nd Mile for molestation like library books? I don’t find that very likely but they were going to the 2nd Mile with the incident anyway. Why would they not be expected to check in on him? So, the only way they could learn the kid’s identity was to ask Sandusky (and I’ll remind you at this point that Freeh absolutely ripped these guys to shreds for even talking to Sandusky at all about it and thereby somehow putting the kid in danger….and now they’re supposed to not only talk to him about it but to ask Sandusky who the kid was??? That’s brilliant!). If JS refused to admit he was in the showers with the kid then he wasn’t likley to give up the kid’s identity. If he did admit it and nothing untoward happened then there’s no use in checking that the kid was OK. If he was in fact raping the kid, it’s highly unlikely Sandusky would give up the actual ID of that kid. He’d likely lie and give them the ID of a kid he never did anything with….who they would have checked in on and found was OK.
      Check if the kid was OK? McQueary said he was OK….why not believe him?????? Besides, they were taking the matter to the Second Mile. The kid was (almost certainly) a second mile kid. Is it really unreasonable for Curley to expect that the Second Mile would be in a much better position to ID the kid and to check to see if he was OK??? He was THEIR FUCKING KID after all. This whole ID the kid and check if he was OK is one of the most absurdly ridiculous arguments in all of the absurd and ridiculous arguments on the Freehbaser’s side of this mess.

      There’s five simple, doublespeak-free, explanations to your five simple questions. The plain fact is you’ve been taken for a fool. There’s no shame in that. Freeh took all his readers for fools and a large majority of those readers took the bait and ran. You’re just a little slow in catching up.

    7. JJ,
      You make this too easy. And again, if you are the JJ that is on the Gricar threads, you really need to stop reading newspaper accounts and to stop listening to what a "detective" who couldn't manage a lost dog case is saying.

      I'll make this easy:

      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.

      Sorry, you don't get a Yes/No answer here. First, grand jury testimony is inadmissible because he was not cross-examined and had no opportunity to clarify a highly equivocating statement about what he thought McQueary MIGHT have told him.

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

      No, he didn't testify to that at all. In fact, he said McQueary DID NOT tell him that. Geesh.

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

      No, Schultz has no authority to investigate anything. Geesh!

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

      Why? Because Curley is a fair individual and, unlike the PSU BOT, would rather ask the accused what happened than simply throw him under the bus without hearing his side. I'm sure you'd expect the same treatment if you were accused of something.

      5. Why did not one of these men start an ivestigation, 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.

      Apparently, they did. The timeline of the case indicates an intervention by DPW/CYS that delayed their interview of Sandusky. This is very similar to the 1998 case, when PSU police wanted to interview Sandusky on 7 May 1998 but were told to hold off. Sandusky was eventually interviewed on June 1st. The delay is not a violation of the Child Welfare Code, however, the Code implies that the subject should be interviewed as soon as possible, if it does not endanger the child.

      Obviously, if CYS/DPW were called to investigate, there is no need for PSU to check the welfare of the child and it would have been illegal for DPW/CYS to release his name to PSU.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. JJ, Ray's blog here has addressed all these issues you mentioned, but you either have not read them or choose to ignore/dismiss them.

    The janitor time frame just wasn't wrong, they specifically said it happend during football season, but the janitor was NEVER employed during football season. I can see if they got the season wrong, but they specifically recalled it was during a football season. There was also supposedly a 2nd janitor there that was told about this, why did he never testify during the trial? It was heresay and they never had another person corroborate the testimony. There was never even any type of medical proof or testimony presented to show the alleged witness was physically unable to testify. They just said it and the judge allowed it. And yes, I am saying the prosecutors manufactured this story to further support their case and pass on additional blame to PSU by claiming it happend on their campus when the only proof is the hearsay testimony of one janitor, who's reason for coming forward in March 2011 was based on the March 2011 article about the assistant coach who saw Sandusky do something similar. Problem there is the March 2011 article never mentioned McQueary, an assistant coach, or the 2001 incident.

    You keep saying Paterno substantiated McQueary story, which is not accurate. All Paterno said was it was of a sexual nature, he did not mention any specific type of sex act. Also, as Ray Bhelar and John Ziegler have mentioned, isn't it quite possible Paterno went to McQueary in 2011 during the investigation and asked McQueary what exactly they discussed 10 years ago?? Paterno was 85 and they were asking him to recall a maybe 10 minute conversation from 10 years ago.

    For the 1998 investigation, Schultz wrote down notes in his file. Please keep in mind at the time that the 1998 was investigated by the PSU and State College police department, plus the Center County CYS and PA DPW and NO CHARGES came from the investigation. Why should Schultz or Curley have a memory of such specific knowledge from a 13 year old incident, in which they were not directly involved in the investigation, and did not result in any charges. You act like this was such a memorable thing for them.

    As for the "secret" Schultz file, he would tell his secretary not to look at because it involves allegations of sexual abuse, which should be kept confidential. It wasn't something for his secretary to be involved in. Also, please remember that Schultz was the one who kept the file and turned it over to prosecutors. And this was where the "evidence" came from that Freeh used in his report which he said was found from "luck and skill", never mentioning that he got it from prosecutors and Schultz was the one who gave it to them. If Schutlz was covering up something, why would he keep such a detailed record of it if he thought it did something wrong, then turn it over to prosecutors??

    All the points you bring up have been refuted in much greater detail than I could ever do by Ray Blehar and John Ziegler. Please read their material much closer.

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Lets go over some recent stories in the news:

      1. Navy Yard Shootings: Rhode Island Police report to Navy that man with clearnace is a psycho. Ball dropped. 12 dead.

      2.Boston Bombings: the Russians warn the FBI/CIA of older brother. Older brother visits Chechnia. Ball dropped. 4 dead; many amputees.

      3. Colorado theatre shootings. Holmes tells his shrink(at University of Co) of homicidal desires. Shrink alerts campus security. Police not told. 12 dead.

      4. Newton shootings. Mother knows son is a psycho and allows him access to auotomatic weapons.26 Dead

      Bengazia- request for help ignored. 4 dead

      And I can go on:

      Can YOU tell me the names of the Navy guy , the FBI agents, the shrink, and the State Dept people who may have dropped the ball.It appears that the media and you, all self- righteous, hypocritical, shallow,one dimensional thinkers have more moral outrage about Joe Paterno, et al. For you all, there is no sensational story about the above human "failings"; no hero to tear down,no ratings; the lust for blood is not satisfied.You can anayze this all you want and attribute all of the evil motives that make you happy; but just make sure that you hold everyone, including yourself, to the same standard you hold Joe, et al

    2. Why don't you respond to the 5 questions? You have had nearly 2 years to respond to these facts, but you engage in senseless hyperbole, and not to address the truth that is hitting you in the face. You have become delusional to Sandusky like levels, reveling in your pain about how Joe Paterno, Schutz and Curley than any of the victims of child abuse.

      For over a year, I have listened and considered what you have opined on this board. I have considered your facts. and arguments. As each passing day, it becomes clearer and clearer that you are mind numbed robots who will not consider the fact if not convenient to your argument. To the point of claiming Sandusky himself is innocent.

      Patern being held to a higher standard? What in the hell are you talking about? He was a grown man who was told that MM saw a something of a sexual nature, perhaps fondling, contacted the AD, and did nothing. Absolutely nothing more.

      I wonder if that had been your son. Paterno didn't know about a victim 2, he knew a complaint was made about possible sex abuse with JS and A CHILD. All this nonsense about victim 2 recanting is complete obfuscation of the truth that you refuse to face.

      Paterno knew about the complaint, but for over 10 years he didn't do a damn thing to find out if the child was ok, what happened, nothing. He passed the information on to Curley and promptly forgot about it.(or acted like he forgot about it) A boy who was possibly raped in the showers of Penn State. He cared only about himself. Holding him to a higher standard, are you kidding me?

      I will be happy to cite to actual testimony, as I did when Barry, who is so far gone that he is literally lying on this thread, made a demonstrably false statement. You don't have to take my word for it, go to the transcript. I provided the citation down to the actual lines.

      Schultz knowing that it was possible Sandusky grabbed a boys genitals, yet did nothing, nothing to check out the welfare of the child. Kept a file in which a poster here acknowledged complaints of sexual abuse against a child. Hence, it was confidential, apparently to the point of not even reporting it.

      Curley went so far as to say he was uncomfortable even investigating the matter, preferring only to go to Sandusky himself. Screw the kid.

      I put these facts out there, and you are feigning moral outrage against me. Maybe you can reread my 5 points and respond with somethingother than 1. you don't know the case or 2. sweeping generalities that mean absolutely nothing.

      Joe Paterno knew about potential sex abuse of a child in Penn States showers. Period. Other than passing it on to Curley, his did nothing the remainder of his life to insure the safety of children who he knew may have been victimized.

      That is his legacy, and it should be.

    3. JJ,
      It's clear from your long rants that you really don't know the facts of the case.

      Let's start with the janitor. If you read my post, the hearsay witness provided at least 3 dates that were wrong (Ohio State, last away game, date of the CDT article that he read about McQueary). In addition, he testified at the grand jury that the incident occured in a different location and that he couldn't see bodies due to an obstruction. There are no obstructions in ANY of the Lasch locker rooms. He's wrong on physical evidence alone. The employment date simply sealed the deal.

      Curley 1998 error. That's all it was. Curley was asked a series of questions and he was actually taken aback by the first one which alleged a sexual incident, which he never heard of. Then they said criminal investigation. Again, he said no. Finally, they asked about an investigation, but being that he was upset at that moment, he said "no." Again, no opportunity to for his attorneys to clarify anything.

      I responded to your Schultz errors on another page, but the bottom line is Schultz was very clear he was not told of grabbing of the genitals by McQ. Harmon just testified that he may have originated the Pandora's box statement.

      Harmon also just testified that he never showed the 1998 police report to Schultz and that Schultz never asked for it.

      The entire finance office administrative staff knew the location of the Sandusky file. Joan Coble testified that she had no idea when Schultz told her about the file, but said it was possible that it was four years before Sandusky retired and that it could have involved financial information about Sandusky that was confidential.

      Obviously, you are jumping to a conclusion that there was some urgent need to track down the victim (which would have been illegal) and to see if he was harmed. Yet, McQueary has not provided any testimony to date that has consistently stated what he saw.

      Common sense tells us that if McQueary really did witness a sexual assault, he would not have waited until the next day to report it.

      If your are the same JJ that posts on the Gricar threads, then I understand your agenda.

    4. I think it was the Boston case where a boy claimed to be sodomized with a butcher knife. The assailant took it out when he was caught in the act by another teacher. But there was no damage at all to tissue in the boy's bottom. The testimony was cited to show how far out testimony was. Yet one fellow still believed the claim when it came up in a comment thread a couple years ago. Some in North Carolina still believe in the Little Rascals case because they lived it.

      Paterno told Sandusky that he could not be head coach unless he gave up Second Mile. When McQueary tattled on Sandusky, Paterno set in motion activities that led to Sandusky being told to keep the Second Mile kids out of Penn State facilities. Ray Blehar's timeline showed that Paterno was successful. Something sexual was not needed for Paterno to be concerned.

      Any testimony about what happened ten years ago is suspect due to failure of memory, normal self serving twisting of testimony, confabulation, and corruption from the environment. JJ's stretch of what he has is foolish indeed. There were at least a thousand exposure years of silence before determined investigators and high priced lawyers created a fantasy that appeals to too many. Community madness is awesome. Those years of silence even after aging out of Second Mile and the lack of any physical evidence is dispositive. Sandusky is totally innocent.

      By the way, I think highly of both Ray Blehar and John Ziegler.

      Also much is made of "something sexual". Sandusky's penis brushing against a kid would be sexual I suppose. But 30 years in prison sexual? - Millions of dollars sexual? "Father hugged me too hard" was claimed against a priest in New York City. Would changing diapers be perversions?

      McQueary was not specific about a crime and horsing around (towel snapping) might have been over the line for him. The claim that the janitors did not report Sandusky because of their fear of Paterno most likely is a self-serving lie because people know that there are laws requiring reporting without knowing their details..

  10. Ray,

    I have read your musings for over a year. Claiming I have an agenda in disengenuous

    ".I responded to your Schultz errors on another page, but the bottom line is Schultz was very clear he was not told of grabbing of the genitals by McQ. Harmon just testified that he may have originated the Pandora's box statement."

    Do you want me to cite to the page and line where Schultz testified, under oath, that the complaint frm MM may have involved JS grabbing the genitals of a boy? I will do that. You know this is a fact. I suspect everyone here does as well.

    Are you saying Harmon testified that Schultz did not ask if a report had been done on JS? Page, line, I will cite. This is another outright fabrication. Schultz did ask if it existed, then testified that he didn't know if one existed. He thewn said "Wow" after being told it was a 95 page report.

    Curley ... why do you do this? Culey not only testified more than to an inquiry, he specifically testified that he had not heard of any sexual or inappropriate COMPLAINTS about JS. Not an inquiry, just a complaint (one would believe an inquiry would have an underlying complaint).

    You then rationalize that Curley must have been upset about the "anal intercourse" question, which would explain his testimony. Ergo, Curley lied under oath (and he did lie) because the prosecutor asked a question that upset him. BTW, Curley seems to be upset easily: he testified he was "uncomfortable" about bringing the complaints to anyone other than JS. Poor Tim Curley.

    What is frustrating is you cannot refute these facts; it was sworn testimony by the people you claim have wrongfully been treated. EACH OF THEM TESTIFIED UNDER OATH TO THE EXACT ISSUES YOU NOW QUESTION.

    I.e. don't listen to their sworn testimony, believe my interpretation of what they truly meant.

    It is difficult for you to come to grips with something you have been ivested in so long, a cause that no doubt you believe noble and worthy.

    However, I specifically pointed 5 facts that refute your argument. You tangentially try to rationalize a couple of them, and don't address the others.

    If you would, please respond to my 5 questions. Its that simple. Convince me that they are untrue and I will never bother you again.

    Its your decision.

    1. JJ,
      Repeating your misinterpretations of what was said is not a valid argument.

      The fact of the matter is, I actually talked to people involved in the case, as well as correctly interpreted what was said.

      Gary Schultz said it was his "impression" of something that might have happened, not what Mike told him. Given that it was not directly from the witness the proper thing to do is verify what happened with Sandusky.

      Harmon testified that Schultz never asked to see the file. Read the transcripts and see if you can find out what the request was from Harmon to Schultz. You won't find that request in there.

      You are simply making evidentiary leaps, just like Louis Freeh did.

      I've already refuted everything you've said. The problem is that you don't like the answers.

    2. "Gary Schultz said it was his "impression" of something that might have happened, not what Mike told him. Given that it was not directly from the witness the proper thing to do is verify what happened with Sandusky."

      Wouldn't this also involve finding out about the child?

      I reread his testimony. GS asked if he could access the police report, after the 2001 incident.

  11. Thank you, sincerely, for the comment about Harmon. I was under the impression that he testified that GS asked him whether a report was made, or could tell from records that GS may have requested it. I will reread his testimony. and if you are correct, I will gladly concede the point. This is why I am here.

    If my tone is off-putting, it is not intentional. The possibility of sexual abuse/contact between a man and a boy in PSU's showers, and inaction, does concern me. As you are concerned about the due process rights of JS, I am concerned about possible abuse of children.

    Two points ... First, do you believe TC was telling the truth when he indicated that he discussed the matter with JP, the day before announcing changes to the plan? If not, is there a reason he would lie?

    "Gary Schultz said it was his "impression" of something that might have happened, not what Mike told him. Given that it was not directly from the witness the proper thing to do is verify what happened with Sandusky."

    Yes, he said impression. He also said that MM's complaint may have involved he adduced) JS grabbing the genitals of an unidentified boy.

    Those were Schultz's word. Grabbing the genitals was not suggested by the prosecutor. Schultz made the statement, no one else.

    It has been mentioned that Schultz was under the impression in might have involved grabbing the boys genitals. You are correct; he did testify that was his impression, not directly what MM said.

    But that begs the question; if the possibility existed that JS grabbed a boys genitals in the shower, via a complaint from another person:

    Why in the world would he not report this, or attempt any basic investigation?
    Even if this was only a possibility?

    1. "Why in the world would he not report this, or attempt any basic investigation? Even if this was only a possibility?"

      Could it be that Schultz was proceeding on the assumption of innocence? Which is a foundation of our legal system in this country. The accuser and the accused have rights. Schultz did not have the benefit of 10 years of hindsight as you do.

      As you also stated "he did testify that was his impression, not directly what MM said".

      Should Schulze have potentially ruined someone's life based on "his impressions" of what McQueary vaguely described? Since McQueary did not act in an urgent manner, it is easy to understand why those involved also did not act urgently.

      If McQueary was sure he saw rape or even sexual abuse in his 10 second glance into a steamy mirror,, why did he only 1) slam a locker door, 2) not physically separate the boy from JS 3) not get the boys name 4) not beat the crap out of JS, and 5) not call authorities immediately?

      The answer is obvious. He was not sure what he saw. For some reason, he testified that when he heard "3 slapping sounds", he assumed it was sex. Someone should ask McQueary, why he made that assumption (has he had sex in that shower?) So, when he glanced in the reflection of the mirror for less than 10 seconds, he mentally expected to see a sex act.

      But he wasn't sure that is what he saw then. But for some reason, after 10+ years, he is sure now (although the Sandusky jury did not believe him).

      Under those circumstances in 2001 without 10 years of hindsight, PSU did more than what was required in their reaction to McQueary's story.

    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    3. JJ,
      You are beating a dead horse and you're wrong.

      I'll make this very simple for you. Under PSU Policy AD72, Joe Paterno should have advised McQueary to call DPW.

      End of story. All responsibilities fulfilled by the EYE-WITNESS actually calling in what he saw.

      Now, I ask you: Does this scenario make the most sense?

      You love to quote people, so how about this quote from McQueary: "I point the finger at myself before anyone else."

      As for the other legalities involved, under Pa C.S. 23 § 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.

      (a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

      None of the people you mentioned are "licensees" thus they were not mandated reporters. However, it is clear that Tim Curley made a report of this incident to Dr. Jack Raykovitz, a licensee, who was mandated to report.

      What more can you possibly want. Under the PSU Policy, McQueary should have reported. Under the law, Raykovitz should have reported.

      Neither person is named Paterno, Curley, Schultz, or Spanier.

      The law states NOTHING about where a crime happens and the fact is that Sandusky's crimes were enabled by his access to children, not the PSU campus. That access to facilities enabled crimes is an absolute joke. If that was the case, then the world's most frequent sex offenders would be......JANITORS.

    4. JJ,
      If you are sincere about your concern for the protection of children, as I am, then you should understand that scapegoating innocent men for the purpose of protecting the STATE AGENCIES that failed so badly is keeping our children at risk.

      The problem is the state of Pennsylvania, not Penn State.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. Can we please have the judicial system determine whether the actions of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were legally defensible or not?

    Moral outrage is a personal thing. What is absolutely unacceptable to me may be something that someone else can live with.

    I'll tune back in when we return to investigating, not speculating beyond the data. It's obvious to me that until or unless these three have their cases presented in a court of law, we'll never have sufficient info to understand this entire mess.

    1. @rdk

      "Can we please have the judicial system determine whether the actions of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were legally defensible or not? "

      An outcome to be wished. Bear in mind that 22 people were tried, convicted and executed in the Titus Oates hoax of 1680. 1692 saw 20 people tried, convicted, and killed in the Salem Witch trials. Massachusetts apologized 300 years later. The five boys in the Central Park jogger case were tried, convicted and imprisoned when another person was eventually found guilty using DNA. The problem there was, like the janitor story hear, testimony was internally inconsistent and self serving. There are several day care center and satanic cult cases that led to wrongful convictions. The Sandusky case fits the pattern. No accusations until somebody concocted problems,.no physical evidence, and bizarre stories such as being sodomized by a butcher knife that did not cut tissue. Why would Sandusky, a criminal genius according to Jim Clemente, attack a boy in a semi public shower room where he could be caught by McQueary or any of the others with access to the location.

      Thanks to mheinz and others who bring facts and logic to the discussion.

    2. Thanks for this reminder that trials don't always reveal the truth! I too very much appreciate the amazing efforts Blehar et al. are making to do just this. I also very much appreciate their apparent commitment to respecting whatever truths emerge in the Sandusky case. That's why I remain interested in supporting their efforts. I think we simply do not have sufficient info yet to really know who is culpable of what in all this. From Sandusky to Paterno to Corbett (and all those involved along the complex network of branches of this story).

      The story of this truth-seeking effort will be an important one to share... as a movie, documentary, dissertation, memoir??!

  14. Lols Gag is the the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Epic Videos, Prank Videos, Fail Videos and Much More Fun and Entertainment, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Lol Videos, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.