Thursday, November 28

Patriot News Acceptance of TSM's Excuses for Not Reporting 2001 Incident Doesn't Pass The Test

The Second Mile admitted they knowingly kept a child molester in their organization from November 2008 through 2011 because of his value as a fundraiser.  Why did the Patriot News pass on the idea that TSM did the same thing in 2001?"


Ray Blehar

The series so far:  The Patriot News and Sara Ganim erroneously reported that TSM kept Sandusky out of children's programs immediately after his investigation began in 2008.  They also truncated the time frame of the abuse of Victim 9 to make it appear as if TSM had a protection plan that kept Sandusky away from children.  In the third part of the series, we'll examine how the Patriot News' and Ganim blindly accepted the charity's excuses for its failure to report the 2001 incident.

When the Sandusky scandal broke, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General's (PA OAG) press conference prominently featured two PSU administrators on a placard next to one of Jerry Sandusky.  Their alleged crimes were failing to report child abuse and perjury regarding what they were told by Mike McQueary.  

From the outset, the Patriot News reported how the report from McQueary was watered down by the PSU administrators which led to their alleged failure to report.  This report was based on the mostly discredited 23-page grand jury presentment and the alleged "watering down" of the incident was patently false and failure to report remains unproven.

While the grand jury presentment mentioned that PSU reported 2001 incident to The Second Mile (TSM), the Patriot News half-heartedly pursued the rather obvious alternative that TSM had failed to report the incident because of financial reasons.  

Early reports by the Patriot News' Donald Gilliland, Sara Ganim,  and Jeff Frantz included discussions of the charity's finances and the escalating salaries of Executive Director Dr. Jack Raykovitz and his wife, Katherine Genovese.  The reporting showed that the charity raised over $17 million from 2002 through late 2008, when Sandusky's consulting fee was stopped.  

Even though the Patriot News laid off the charity's finances in its future reporting, the fact that the victims all were from the charity and the horrific nature of the crimes reported in the presentment (though the worst two incidents have been debunked), the charity was unable to survive financially.

Amazingly, the financial failure - and the importance of Jerry Sandusky  to the charity as its key fund raiser- never "grew legs" as the reason why TSM didn't report Sandusky for the 2001 incident.

Excuses for Failure To Report Don't Hold Water

The Patriot News and the rest of the media led the public to believe that Penn State covered up for a retired coach (that Joe Paterno didn't even like) to preserve the school's reputation.  Absent alternative scenarios  (of which there are several), the public bought this nonsense, much like it did the Duke lacrosse/rape case.

But to sell this nonsense to the public, the Patriot News  promoted the narrative that a licensed, PhD psychologist, would not suspect that an incident of a man showering with a child was possible child abuse because an athletic director may have told him otherwise.  

That is simply preposterous.   

Dr. Raykovitz worked for Mid-Step Child Development Center, which specialized in children and adolescent development/counseling, as well as serving as the Executive Director of the charity.  Obviously, he would not have been been swayed by the report of a layman about a possible child abuse situation. 

Curley's testimony at the grand jury was that Sandusky's actions had made a PSU employee (McQueary) "uncomfortable."  If it was enough for Curley to meet in person with charity's Executive Director, then if anyone is downplaying what was reported, it was Raykovitz.  

Ironically, he's not the only "psychologist" in this saga to downplay Sandusky's actions.

But it gets better.

In Sara Ganim's five-part series, published in August 2012, one of the charity's directors, Bruce Heim, went on the record to state that he told Raykovitz that the 2001 shower incident was a "non-starter" and that it need not be reported to TSM's board.

So now we have Dr. Jack Raykovitz, licensed psychologist, not suspecting or reporting child abuse because he was advised so by a real estate developer.  


Heim's statement on his advice to Dr. Raykovitz was also quite remarkable:

“For five years, I worked out at the football facility, several times a week, and saw Jerry showering with children,” he said. “I said I don’t think it’s relevant. It happens every day at the YMCA. I remember the conversation specifically because it seemed like a nonstarter because of what Penn State said went on.”

And of course, the most preposterous statement of all came from Raykovitz, who  advised Sandusky to wear swim trunks if he showered with children after workouts. 

The Patriot News gave TSM a pass for not reporting the 2001 incident, citing these incredibly weak statements as justification.  And it didn't bother to raise the issue of the competency of Dr. Raykovitz to be running a children's charity -- or him being permitted to work with children.

Maybe that was because the Patriot News understood this was not about competency -- it was about money.  And their job was to follow (and not deviate from) the story line offered by the PA OAG.

Charity Kept Molester Around To Raise Money, Keep Charity Afloat

The Patriot News reported when Raykovitz was informed about the Sandusky investigation in November 2008, they decided to not tell the public anything about it unless they were directly asked.  The TSM Board was split on Sandusky's future involvement with the charity.   However, the split decision was to let Sandusky continue to fund raise while he was under criminal investigation.  

Ganim reported

Myra Toomey, who was hired to work in the development office in 2011, said she wasn’t told about the accusations against Sandusky until after she accepted the job.

Although Sandusky had formally announced his retirement from the charity in September 2010, he remained involved with the charity for special events and fundraisers even after his investigation was announced in March 2011.   In January 2011, Dr. Raykovitz mentioned Sandusky's continued involvement with the charity when it appealed to the Centre County commissioners for funding for the construction of its Center of Excellence.  Sandusky would later play in TSM's golf tournament/fund-raiser that spring.

The evidence that TSM kept an indicated child abuser involved with a children's charity after he had lost his clearance to work with children is bad enough.  But to admit they did it because of his ability to raise money truly shows their true motivation.  

Yet, the Patriot News never made this the story.  

That same motive existed in 2001, yet the Patriot News promoted the lame excuses offered by Heim and Raykovitz for keeping Sandusky's abuse a secret then.

The truth is that TSM's failure to report Sandusky in 2001 wasn't because of the advice Dr. Raykovitz received from an athletic director and a real estate developer.

Sandusky was not reported by TSM in 2001 because it would have been the end of the charity.

History has proven that.


  1. Interesting and very convoluted....but I would like to throw a wrench in for the sake of discussion:

    What crime was Raykovitz supposed to report? JS was slap-boxing with a 14 year old kid in the showers? Really? V6 was interviewed by police and they knew exactly what happened. Gricar determined, correctly, that no crime was committed. DA's need crimes....sometimes big crimes...before they pursue it.

    House broken into in LA? Hope you have good homeowners insurance. Police will take a report but DA won't flinch for anything less than about 10 grand. Fraud and theft of government property? FBI and NCIS aren't going to spend $50 K investigating a $5 K loss...hell, they don't even think $50 K is "real money".

    I can sympathize with Heim. Every since I took swimming lessons at age 10, I had to shower and stand in line naked to get my body inspected before they would let me in the pool. Same at scout camp and for sports physicals. Coaches, teachers, and other adults showered with us. Nobody thought anything of it. Running around in your birthday suit was kind of fun at that age.

    What Raykovitz's professional obligations were is another matter. There was certainly enough inappropriate behavior to start, at a minimum, an internal investigation.

    1. Gregory,
      This is not about reporting a crime - it's about reporting SUSPECTED child abuse. The statute is clear - and the training is more than clear - if you suspect anything, report it.

      Again, if this incident in the PSU shower was significant enough for the Athletic Director to arrange a face-to-face meeting to discuss it and for PSU to ban Sandusky from using the workout rooms with TSM children, then it was something that Raykovitz should have reported. He's a mandated reporter -- the only one of such people in the loop in the 2001 incident.

      Also, you are downplaying the V6 incident significantly. Det Schreffler considered there was enough there for charges. V6 took two showers within 12 hours of showering with Sandusky. That's a pretty strong sign that some sort of unwanted touching went on that made him feel "dirty."

      We don't know what Gricar determined or when, if ever, he closed the Sandusky investigation. The assumption is he decided not to charge, but there is no documentation of the decision. Gricar was later on campus with Schreffler, Ganter, and Ralston in October of 1998 -- who's to say that wasn't part of an ongoing investigation that didn't really close until 2005?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Ray

    We had a mutually stimulating dialog going. Why did you delete all the comments?

    Honest, I'm no robot! LoL!

    1. I deleted you because you are making a FALSE argument using many FALSE arguments.

      J. McQueary at the prelim used the same stupid, planted by the OAG words, "sexual nature" then said he couldn't describe it "because I wasn't there."

      Dranov did not call them sex sounds.

      Lenny Moore - talk about hearsay. Inadmissible.

      Paterno - equivocated a million times. Inadmissible.

      Schultz - made it clear that McQueary didn't provide any details.

      What you are arguing is about as factual as a newspaper column written by Sara Ganim. In other words, nothing you wrote was accurate.

  3. Anyway, to continue the communication....

    My only concern, my only issue is the actions of four men in that 24 hour period in 2001.

    Here are the recorded facts you are ignoring. And I don't know why!

    Fact: McQueary's father testified in the Prelim Hearing that he believed his son witnessed a rape!

    Fact: The incompetent Dr.Dranov testified in the Sandusky Trial that McQueary responded to his one repeated question the sounds that sounded sexual to him (McQueary)! Dranov very explicitly recounted how emotionally disturbed the redhead appeared causing him (Dranov) to cease any further questioning. I call him incompetent because the two facts I cited here call out, scream out for the police to be contacted immediately and without hesitation!

    Paterno testified in the GJ Presentment he believed something of a "sexual nature" transpired in Shower 2001 This admission was reinforced in his meeting in 2011 with Lenny Moore, a Paterno confidant, who reported that Paterno related to him that he immediately believed in 2001 Sandusky to be the disturbed monster McQueary had reported.

    Schultz in the Prelim Hearing related that McQueary did in fact relate to him that something "sexual" did in fact occur in the Shower.

    Ray, these are all recorded facts! Yes, although I agree that McQueary should have made the call, he didn't! Fact!

    But no,he wasn't the only person of the "four" who could have made that call! Why?

    Here's why. Pennsylvania law regarding the specific process for reporting of child molestation to a superior in public education is always immediately trumped, always immediately ignored, always immediately dismissed, always immediately set aside when a kid is undergoing a molestation at the exact same time of discovery. That kid in Shower 2001 was in immediate emotional and physical danger that evening, through the night, and the next day and beyond. He needed help immediately! And yes, there are no facts, no evidence, no proof that can dispel this observation. When a kid is found in the state of alleged molestation, you and the police always assume the worst and hope for the best. And that “worst” is always assumed to continue until a policing authority apprehends, steps in, and separates man from child. Again, when JoePa and McQueary were performing their pathetic conferencing ritual, a little boy, at the exact same time, was being terrorized!

    Ray, I'm suddenly feeling that the difference between the two of us is that in any situation even remotely similar to Shower 2001, I first and foremost always think of the kid. You don't! In this kind of situation, if one errs, one always errs on the side of an alleged

    1. Mike4949, why aren't you primarily concerned about the actions of a different set of four men (and two women) the precise night of the 2001 shower incident?

      McQueary, McQueary, Dranov, and Sandusky (and Mrs. McQueary and Dottie S).

      Apparently Mike M was not certain enough about what was happening that evening between Sandusky and the boy to warrant him, his father or mother, or a designated abuse-reporter and physician (Dranov) notifying CYS, DPW, any police, or even Sandusky's workplace The Second Mile, through which Sandusky may know the boy.

      So if not certain enough to notify those entities, Mike M, or his folks, or Dr Dranov should have felt compelled to call Dottie or even Jerry that night or early the next morning. As a precautionary courtesy, if nothing more. You know... small community, appearance of serious impropriety, watch your behavior before rumors fly... these people knew each other, why not say something directly to Jerry and/ or Dottie, at least under the guise of neighborly concern and advice.

      Before putting ANY stock into what people have said ten years after the event, I would focus like a laser on what was done and not done by those closest to the event, on the night of the event. Why on earth would Mike M, his dad, his mom, and a close family friend and colleague NOT deal directly with this... even if directly only meant telling Sandusky that his behavior was quite upsetting and, at the least, improper in the PSU football facilities???

      The only way it makes sense to me that the McQuearys and Dranov agreed that telling Coach Paterno was THE thing to do, is that Mike M, though very rattled, believed he had encountered something minor though it posed a serious perception problem for Paterno's football facilities.

      Mike4949, please look, and think, upstream from Joe Paterno. This is where the real questions still exist. And where some root explanations of this complex story could be found.

    2. To RDK

      Thanks much for your interesting and thought provoking post.

      But wait! Nevertheless, did not the incompetent Dr. Dranov, McQueary’s father, and McQueary himself feel, was felt by all three, that “somebody" needed to be contacted! Instinctively as revealed by their actions, all felt something was at least possibly wrong!

      An aside: As regards that evening in 2001, McQueary’s mother was never revealed as being a part of nor involved in the conversation nor the decision making between the three men.

      And RDK,you can’t simply dismiss, make trivial the recorded facts of the case; to whit…..

      Fact: McQueary's father testified in the Prelim Hearing that he believed his son witnessed a rape!

      Fact: The incompetent Dr.Dranov testified in the Sandusky Trial that McQueary responded to his one repeated question the sounds that sounded sexual to him (McQueary)! Dranov very explicitly recounted how emotionally disturbed the redhead appeared causing him (Dranov) to cease any further questioning. I call him incompetent because the two facts I cited here call out, scream out for the police to be contacted immediately and without hesitation!

      Although I feel there was no confusion that McQueary had witnessed something sexually untoward between adult and child, let’s go with for a New York Minute with your theory RDK that everyone was confused -- including McQueary himself.

      Call it “fondling,” “touching,” “caressing,” or “horseplay,” a naked male adult with a naked minor in a closed private gymnasium at a major university on a Friday night constitutes reasonable doubt, a legalized suspicion as to the appropriateness of that adult’s behavior. A 911 call is mandated here legally and ethically -- immediately without hesitation. Period! You always let the policing experts take over and investigate the legality or illegality of a scene of alleged molestation! Period!

      Paterno and McQueary’s transgression was instantaneously covering up er…..making invisible, obscure, and insignificant a little boy suspected to be in immediate danger by replacing his image, instantaneously, with the image of Jerry Sandusky.

      Had that adult in Shower 2001 been a stranger, JoePa’s legacy today would be in place and untouched!

    3. To RDK

      You: " Mike M, or his folks, or Dr Dranov should have felt compelled to call Dottie or even Jerry that night or early the next morning. As a precautionary courtesy, if nothing more. You know... small community, appearance of serious impropriety, watch your behavior before rumors fly... these people knew each other, why not say something directly to Jerry and/ or Dottie, at least under the guise of neighborly concern and advice."

      Interesting your position. That was the same position taken by the Catholic Church. Keep everything in-house; leave any professional investigative resource out of it.

      And RDK, This is how the pedophile and pedophilia thrive! This insane act upon innocent little children prospers under need to know secrecy and under the never ending avoidance of getting anyone's proverbial feet wet!

      What exactly could the incompetent Dr. Dranov say? This a witness to a witness' emotional observation. What does Dranov know about questioning a suspect to an alleged crime? Such a conversation between he and Sandusky (as we now know) would have been laughable. No, no, and no! You let a policing authority not only investigate Sandusky in an objective non-bias manner; but you let them discover the identity of the alleged victim. Only a policing authority could have discovered and talked to the alleged victim -- not Dranov! And only a policing authority would have direct access to the allegations brought upon Sandusky in Shower 1998!

      RDK, your suggestion is wrong here on so many levels -- and you know it.

      You: “ Why on earth would Mike M, his dad, his mom, and a close family friend and colleague NOT deal directly with this... even if directly only meant telling Sandusky that his behavior was quite upsetting and, at the least, improper in the PSU football facilities???"

      Excellent question RDK. Had that adult in Shower 2001 been a total stranger there is no doubt in my mind, your mind, or anyone’s mind that calling 911 was the only thing to do legally and ethically! Why? Because their whole concern would have been for the welfare of the unknown little boy. Yes, the legal and ethical instincts would have taken over for all three!

      But people hesitated, including the shook up, scared, indecisive McQueary! Why? And they all instantaneously made invisible, trivial, all concern for the boy. Why? The answer to both questions is that all three instantly replaced the image of the child with the image of Sandusky. They all pathetically sensed that the adult being revealed as Sandusky could cause JoePa and the football program a disastrous result. And by golly, they were right!

      RDK, no matter what euphemisms you employ to devalue McQueary’s witnessing, he was consistent in the Presentment, the Prelim Hearing, and the Sandusky Trial that a sexual molestation of some kind transpired. And whether he was right or wrong, the only ethical solution, the only legal approach was to call a policing authority immediately without hesitation!

      Again RDK, if you want to talk about Spanier, Curley, and Schlutz’s complicity, fine. Nonetheless, my whole concern is a about 24 hour period in 2001 in which four men knew what was the right thing to do but chose the wrong thing to do.

    4. Mike, you obviously want to focus on the 2001 shower incident that is just that, an incident, and not clearly a rape at all. Was the "janitor witness" added by the state, or fabricated rather, to back up McQueary's uncertainty about what he heard? Yes, because, hearing isn't seeing. So the state fabricated evidence to make it appear that someone else "saw" rape at various other times. Ray has proven this to be false.

      Also, most importantly, why was that shower incident even happening at all if Tom Corbett was aware of and not acting on reports of child rape by Sandusky between 1995 and 1997? You don't get it do you? Corbett's abandonment of duty to arrest Sandusky way back in 1995 is the reason for the shower incident. Corbett put PSU in harm's way, period.

      We're talking about state neglect to arrest a pedophile that was raping his Sencond Mile kids in hotel rooms between 1995 and 1997. And we're talking about fabrication of evidence to cover it up. Anything happening after the state's earliest awareness of Sandusy's crimes is a result of their abandonment of duty to protect children. The state protected Sandusky and Second Mile over children and then tried to frame innocent citizens in their place.

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

    6. I doubt you would find many that would disagree that something "sexually untoward" was what you could call the shower incident. But we can only speculate, because there really was no witness of anything other than a naked man and a boy taking a shower. So, it remains ambiguous, and it's just something untoward. A naked man showering with, and brushing up against a boy in the shower is definitely untoward, but it can't be said it's rape. I believe it follows with what Sandusky was, a pedophile trying to sexually touch boys whenever he could.
      It shouldn't even have occurred along with every other reported actual rape or incident that occurred after Corbett's first handling of Sandusky complaints between 1995 and 1997.
      We are all being misled to focus on fabricated rapes and/or ambiguous incidents that supposedly occurred on the campus way after the state's first mishandling of Sandusky complaints . This is a crucial issue for the state to place blame on PSU. The state has successfully duped the public into believing that PSU willingly provided a "raping facility" to Sandusky. When in actuality, the state enabled a child molester to take advantage of PSU and the public in general. Most of Sandusky's crimes occurred elsewhere in PA, not on the university campus. The state is so desperate to make the PSU connection that they've fabricated a false rape and a false witness.
      The state protected Sandusky, Second Mile, wealthy donors, and now themselves over children. Thereby putting PSU and their visitors in harm's way.

    7. Mike4949 - You ignore well established facts and assume facts not in evidence. There are often multiple interpretations for the limited solid facts for shower 2001. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the 2001 incident because human memory is simply not that good, and McQueary told different versions of his story to the 5 men.

      Dranov testified that all Mike told him was seeing a boy peer around the shower wall, an arm pull the boy back and Sandusky exit the shower a bit later.

      None of the 5 men McQueary talked to in 2001 corroborate his story of seeing Sandusky bear hugging the boy from behind.

      One of the few facts that is well-corroborated is that McQueary was upset the night and next day after the incident. However, his upset could have been due not to what he saw but his being upset at himself because he panicked and ran away without getting a good understanding of what was going on. His upset may have also been because he overreacted and called his father before thinking that snitching on Sandusky could ruin his career if the boy denied anything happened.

    8. I keep wondering why MM associated sex with slapping sounds (a conditioned response). Dranov was obviously perplexed. Three slapping sounds could be a lot of things (towels, footballs, high fives). Everyone else was perplexed and were trying to rationalize what MM was saying. Sandusky says that they were slap-boxing. The kid (who everyone close to the case knows) says nothing happened. He even lived with the Sanduskys while he studied for a semester at PSU before enlisting in the Marine Corps. My personal opinion is that MM has some serious problems yet to be revealed.

      Dranov and MM's father were mandated reporters and could lose their medical practitioner's license for not reporting suspected child abuse. They obviously didn't think that MMs story met the reporting criteria. Why they told MM to talk to Joe is curious....they all knew that as a coach, he had absolutely no authority to do anything. Dranov and Shultz had some sort of relationship, which begs the question as to why Dranov didn't contact Shultz directly.

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

    10. Mike4949,
      The fact that you are not concerned with the actions of John McQueary and Dr. Dranov is quite a tell.

      Two trained medical professionals hear a first hand account of what Mike McQueary witnessed within minutes (John McQueary) or an hour (Dr Dranov) of the event and YOU believe Paterno not calling the cops the next morning put a child in danger.

      Well, if so, why wasn't Sandusky charged with kidnapping? That would seem to be the logical conclusion drawn by your "concern" about the welfare of the child 12 hours later with Paterno and 36 hours later with Curley/Schultz.

      I've not seen you mention kidnapping here. So what gives?

      I'll tell you what gives. You are a fraud. A fraud who doesn't know the first thing about compliant victimization and PSOs like Sandusky. The only time a PSO like Sandusky would physically harm a victim is likely NEVER. At most, Sandusky would threaten him if he intended to break off the relationship or threaten to disclose the abuse. Obviously, that didn't happen with this victim (if in fact, the V2 who got paid by PSU is this victim).

      You could care less about protecting children, otherwise you'd be screaming that John McQueary should be in a cell next to Sandusky. He's the guy who advised Mike, within minutes of Mike witnessing a child (using your term) in "danger" with Sandusky, to "get out of there." To leave that child unprotected.

      You're only concerned with the actions of 4 people - who all got a second hand or third hand report long after the incident -- which by law - would be reported to DPW, not the police.

      Again, you are a fraud.

  4. I am extremely grateful to Ray for this blog where all of us can offer our opinions, and even facts about all of this. But we can comment here ad infinitum and it still won't stop the continued slander and abuse of innocent people's rights that are occurring each day that passes. Someone commented earlier in "Ganim and Patriot News continue cover-up for TSM..." stating, " Kane has plenty enough exculpatory evidence presented to her by Ray and John Z to dismiss the case against Curley, Shultz, and Spanier". So why no action on Kane's part? Isn't that in itself a neglect of duty that is allowing more damage to occur? Don't get me wrong, I want to be wrong here, but every day passing equals more damage to innocent people, more slander, more obstruction of justice, more confusion, more lying, and more lawsuits. Someone needs to step in and stop this whole ugly damaging process.

    I think what I'm saying is, we've all had enough of "investigations" like Freeh's "investigation". Now it's Kane's "investigation". How about we have some court room action that actually rights these wrongs against PSU? Is the Attorney General of Pennsylvania unable to bring charges against government officials that commit serious crimes?

    Ray has explained to me many times that these investigations lead off into other areas of inquiry. However, I believe there comes a point when arrests need to begin in spite of an investigation being "finished" or not. Otherwise, those being investigated are illegally thwarting the investigative process. It's like a doctor saying, "we can't treat the cancer until we find all the cancer". NO, that's not how it works. Any good doctor will remove the larger obvious cancers in a person right away, so they have the strength to fight against the possible hidden ones that can be found at a later date. So what Kane it trying to do here is let the patient (PSU) succumb while she explains, "we have to find everything before we can treat".
    I say, NONSENSE!

    1. And ironic.

      Corbett has used this exact narrative to explain why his office's investigation of Sandusky took so long before any arrests.

      Then Kane was elected largely for her promise to investigate why and how Sandusky was allowed to remain free for so long to continue the damage he was doing.

      Irony AND nonsense!

    2. To Truthseeker

      I wholeheartedly agree with your passionate position!

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

    4. So let's say Joe Paterno is guilty as charged, by you.

      He was fired, not allowed to make his statement, diagnosed with cancer, died, his statue taken down, his name removed from awards and buildings, his wins record rescinded, the university that he financially supported has lost millions due to his perceived wrongdoing, and his legacy of academic achievement by his athletes no longer is honored.

      Mike4949, what punishment would you like to see laid on Joe Paterno today?

    5. Mike, I just re-read that story on Lenny Moore, both versions I could find, and Joe didn't say anything remotely like he knew in 2001 that Sandusky “….was a sexual predator who had to be stopped – immediately without hesitation.” Nothing like that whatsoever. He did say, "Lenny, when I found out about what was going on in the shower, it blew me away. Then when I found out all of what I knew, I went to (Penn State president Graham) Spanier, who’s my head; I went to the athletic director (Tim Curley); I told them everything I knew. And I left it alone." Well, he didn't tell them much at all what was happening in that shower since McQueary, by his own admission, did not tell him much about what was happening in that shower (probably because he didn't actually see much about what was happening in that shower - but that's a different coversation for a different kitchen). If you believe that McQueary did go into a great amount of detail with Joe on the matter than you must believe that McQueary lied under oath at the Curley/Schultz prelim about what he told Joe, and if that's where you want to go with it I will not stop you.

      Another lie of omission is that you neglect to mention that Joe was making these statements n 2012 with the full knowledge of the charges brought against Sandusky by the AG as detailed in the grand jury presentment. They were NOT statemetnts made contemperanious to the events in 2001. The knowledge of the charges against Sandusky would obviously have colored his thinking on the matter and may likley have shaped his memory on it, which we know was faulty in any event since he told Moore that he went directly to Spanier in 2001 and we know from all avaialable evidence that he did no such thing.

      In 2001, Joe did not know that Sandusky was a monster who had to be taken off the streets immediately and you telling anyone that Joe indicated that to Moore is a flat out lie. You must stop lying to Ray's readers and anyone else you're spouting your nonsense to.

    6. MHentz - The 2012 Paterno -Moore conversation indicates that two years prior in 2010, Paterno went to Spanier and told him everything he knew. That suggests that Paterno learned more details from Mike McQueary in 2010 after Mike spoke to police or prosecutors.

      It seems quite natural that McQueary would have gone to his mentor and boss in 2010 to warn him of what was coming. McQueary likely felt he owed Paterno a head up because knew that he told Paterno a deliberately vague story in 2001.

      Paterno was mad that Spanier did nothing with the 2010 warning to defuse the situation, and there was much that could have been done from a PR standpoint in 2010 and 2011.

    7. What we heard from Joe in his last months was a very sick 85 year man trying to understand what was going on, and was unable to do so. He was much sicker than anyone imagined for his last year. I spent a lot of time with my dad as he was dying of cancer. He seemed to be functioning normally months before his death, but he was not. It became terribly obvious that his brain was shutting down.

      After reading Sally Jenkins article after she interviewed this sick man, I became ill. Maybe I should pray for the salvation of Sally's soul, as she is destined for the fires of hell.

    8. Mr. Verrnon: I can relate and sympathize completely with your experience that you have related here about your dying father. My father past about 6 years ago from leukemia. As you describe, these courageous old timers continue to put forth the image of strength and lucidity that they once had. But they are dying and losing their cognitive abilities. It's not so clear to those that don't know them well. But to the sons and daughter's they've loved and raised, it becomes painfully obvious they are struggling terribly, because we truly know who they are.

      These great older folks were raised in an era of honor that clearly doesn't exist any longer. Most of them put truthfulness and honor over everything else, even money. They had integrity. No one from their time period, would ever, in their worst nightmares, take such a great kind heart of a man as Paterno, and literally lie so blatantly and unconscionably so as to put blame on him for things he knew nothing about.

      Paterno was a vulnerable target for the ruthlessness of a corrupt PA government, under Tom Corbett, looking for a scapegoat. To exploit his age, his illness, and his unsuspecting good nature is beyond criminal, it's simply evil. Mr. Paterno gave his life and his heart to the people of Pennsylvania, and this is how his own government repays him? It truly is a tragedy of epic proportions that even Kathleen Kane is too afraid to expose. It is so unfathomably evil, Kane is simply trying to squash it. She shows us she does not have the courage to fight this kind of evil, and she is merely protecting her employer, the state of Pennsylvania.

      The latest is the PA Attorney General, Kathleen Kane, is attempting to deny Spanier's request for a Bill of Particulars which is information he needs to bring an effective defamation suit against Freeh. This is proof of Ms. Kane's intentions. She is of this morally bankrupt generation that functions with little conscience and a whole lot of fear. She says one thing, yet serves to protect those responsible for the lynching of an honest man. She is protecting the evil and giving it strength by doing so. And so she is weakening her very moral fiber and her own state as she does what she claims is right.

      Maybe it's good Joe is no longer here to see what we have allowed our selves to become.

    9. @Tim Berton. That's complete nonsense. Mike knew noting was coming in 2010. He was completley surprised when the cops approached him out of the blue in early Nov 2011 and knew nothing was coming at any time prior. Whatever Joe meant by for two years they did nothing is a mystery, but the guy was pretty damned far from fully coherent at the time he made the statement. Joe touched base with Mike possibly once a year during the decade but Mike never gave him any greater detail than what was in his original report in 2001 (which was close to nothing), and that's almost certainly becuase he never knew any greater detail than what was inhis original report.

  5. I think this Mike4949 is Judas. The writing style is the same repetitive fluff surrounding the tired and pathetic one-sentence body of "someone should have called 911 for the boy in the shower". Judas/Mike, that is the most laughable worn-out long-disproved assertion to be resurrected in years! There was no rape in the shower at PSU, period! You are a shill for state government still trying pitifully to create a drama around PSU that doesn't exist. Go earn an honest living somewhere.

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

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

    3. Mike4949: Load of B.S., you're just shill and a heckler. Get a real job!

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

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. To Ray,

    I realize that a controversial topic like this is bound to attracts trolls of different colors. I can't tell you who to block and who to let go, but Mike 4949 crosses the line to my mind. His comments are clearly intended to provoke, and he repeatedly distorts statements from other writers. I come to this site to find information the mainstream media is avoiding, not to read such petty rants as "For shame, my friendless, childless, jobless, morally impaired eunuch!" Please consider banning him from the site.

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

    2. MIke,
      I've never conceded anything to you and I most certainly NEVER would (in a million years) agree that anything warranting a call to the police happened in the showers in 2001. If something of that nature occurred, most assuredly John McQueary would have advised MIKE to immediately call the police from the locker room (and not told him to come home).

      Here's what I'll concede to you. The fact that you used the word RAPE in conjunction with the 2001 incident means you don't know the facts of the case. The jury disagrees with you as does every other piece of evidence and people's actions on that night in 2001.

      ALSO, YOU ARE COMPLETELY INCORRECT to cite the law regarding child abuse reporting in public schools because PSU is not a public school. A public school is defined in the Public School Act of 1949 and does not include universities. In addition, under PA law, a student is defined as someone attending a public school from Kindergarten up to age 17. That definition excludes PSU.

      You have no idea what you are talking about and if you truly cared about children, you would be focused on 1998, not 2001.

  8. Dear Mike4949,
    You are still mean spirited, nasty, calling people names & yelling at all of us.
    You are beyond the PALE!
    You have not even considered or mentioned all the work that Eileen Morgan has done with
    Respect to 2001 MM Victim 2 Shower Incident.
    These are FACT about YOU, I am pretty sure of, not 100% sure though.
    Ray is NOT your Brother and can speak for himself.
    Left handed Comments are just unnecessary.
    Christmas, Biblical References & the Bible have no business in the posts .
    I’m surprised you did NOT bring up “I’m a father of two small boys”
    Your RANTS put everyone off like “Dorothy in the Poppies”
    You are totally disrespectful of Joe Paterno & The Paterno Family.
    Thank-you for Not saying bad things about Franco or John Z.
    Most of what you have said about (2001) is Anachronistic!
    The Closest I do to calling you a name is, I think you belong to


    Chuck O’Connor

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

    2. Mike, you are f-ing insane!!!!!!! Your mischaraterizations of Joe's convo with Lenny Moore go beyond mere mistskes and fall into the realm of flat out lies. You're mischaracterization of yourself as a defender of Joe is a flat out lie. Your mischaracterization of truthseeker as a guy out to destroy Joe's legacy is a flat out lie. I've seen nothing in Ray's writings anywhere, either here or elsewhere, to suggest that he agrees with you on anything to do with Joe's involvement in the 2001 incident and your sugeesting he does is a flat out lie. Your veiled threats have not gone unnoticed. You're earlier straw man argument over how things might have been different if the boy in the shower had been one of Joe's grandchildren is matched in its disgracefulness only by its patheticness. Your lies are patholigical, You're sick, man. Merry Christmas my f-ing ass, you need to be locked up for the sake of all humanity.

  9. I have had several lengthy conversations with 49ermike ... he bases his entire argument on the Lenny Moore story. He seems to think that the fact that McQueary wasn't hired as a fulltime coach after the 2000 season has something to do with the 2001 shower incident ... nevermind the fact that young Mike had exactly ONE year as a grad asst. under his belt. Mike is also under the impression that the 2000 janitor incident was ruled inadmissible.

  10. You know, in a way, these excessive nonsensical rants by trolls are a testament to the fact that this blog of Ray's is beginning to have an effect on public opinion. I think the public, and Kathleen Kane are standing back and saying, "you know what, this evidence that Ray and John are presenting just can't be ignored any longer".

  11. Here's just one more reminder that Joe Paterno only cared about football and not people....Perhaps this isn't the place to share this, but it deserves to be seen.

  12. And I meant "only cared about football and not people..." with the highest degree of sarcasm...

  13. Let's see, we have Dick Thornburgh saying he supports Corbett for reelection, we have Kane stonewalling Graham Spanier's request for a Bill of Particulars. Yet how can this be? These two people claim to want to right the wrongs against PSU and Paterno.

    I think the evidence of state government wrong-doing that Ray and John Z. uncover is simply being accumulated and studied by Kane for purposes of preparing and building a defense against it. Otherwise, there should be action against those that have fabricated evidence for the Freeh report. And all these bogus victims lawsuits against PSU are based on the Freeh report untruths. Wasn't it Fina and Kelly that concocted this janitor "witness" story for Corbett? So why is Kane not making a move to charge them?