Monday, June 30

Jennifer Storm's "Wild Spin" of Tom Corbett's Sandusky Investigation

Corbett appointee Jennifer Storm goes to bat for her boss in this Patriot News Op-Ed....and the Patriot News plays along.

Ray Blehar

Today's Op-Ed by Jennifer Storm, titled "Don't Forget Everything Tom Corbett Did Right In the Sandusky Case" provides a delusional view of the investigation that was NOT directed by now Governor Tom Corbett.

As Geoffrey Moulton's report clearly revealed, Corbett didn't politicize the investigation for the mere fact that he didn't direct anyone to do anything.  Given that finding, Storm's article praising what Corbett did right is simply her fantasy about what happened.

Storm was appointed by Governor Corbett to be the Pennsylvania State Victim's Advocate.  She previously served as victim's advocate for Dauphin County and is on a number of state boards and commissions, including the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (which was once Corbett's stomping ground as chairman in the late 1990s).  

Of course, the Patriot News didn't reveal any of that information.

Readers of the blog may remember my letter chastising Storm and other self-proclaimed victim's advocates for pretending to know how Sandusky's victims felt about the Paterno Report and for their failures to speak out about the breakdowns in Pennsylvania's child protection system. 

And she continues to shill for Pennsylvania's broken system today.

PA No Longer An Outlier?

Today, Storm wrote this falsehood about Pennsylvania's child protection system.

"Three years ago, Gov. Corbett commissioned a task force to review state laws on child abuse. Experts including child welfare workers, rape crisis advocates, pediatricians and law enforcement released a report in November 2012.

Most of its recommendations were drafted into laws and, thanks to their adoption, Pennsylvania is no longer a statistical outlier when it comes to protecting its children."

Apparently, being DEAD LAST in child abuse reports at 8 per 1,000  children and in child abuse findings at 1.3 per 1,000 children is good news to Storm.

This is indeed a statistical outlier -- and it's the rock bottom.

Like the sun rising in the east, you can count on Corbett's handlers to trot out Jennifer Storm whenever the prepackaged narrative of the Sandusky scandal is challenged.  She was trotted out at the outset of the Sandusky mess to opine about the then unsubstantiated allegations of PSU's  failure to report Sandusky and to call for tougher penalties on reporting. 

In keeping up her role as a defender of the status quo, Storm crafted this fabrication:

"The Moulton Report didn't help with its rearview mirror scrutiny of the career prosecutors and investigators who built the Sandusky case -- a case then-Attorney General Tom Corbett did not hesitate to take on."

Moulton's report showed the exact opposite of Storm's fantasy.  It took a full year, from March 2009 until March 2010, for the office to recommend charging Sandusky because basic investigative steps were not taken, including searching Sandusky's home. 

 And again, Corbett wasn't directing anyone to do anything.

What did Corbett do right?  Absolutely nothing.

Not Rushing Along??

Storm really had no idea what can of worms she opened with this statement:

"If Corbett's prosecutors had rushed headlong and arrested Sandusky on the word of one, reluctant witness, Sandusky would be walking free today. We can only tremble to think of what else he  might be doing.

Because of careful police work and careful case-building, eight brave young men took the witness stand and helped in the most successful prosecution and conviction of a celebrity serial sexual predator this country has ever seen."

Once again, the Patriot News editorial board failed to check its own archive for the truth about how investigators didn't want to rush into building the case.  The Patriot News deleted much of Sara Ganim's  January 8, 2012 column about the foot-dragging by investigators in the FREE public version of the story, , but you could read the full article by paying or searching web archives for it.  

The mother of Victim 6 reported that the AG didn't want to pursue her son's case, which led to finding four of Sandusky's victims.   Without that mother, the case wouldn't have been built...and the AG was going to take a pass on it. 

Given what we've seen from Jennifer Storm, she will probably write another Op-Ed and accuse the mother of lying.

Victim's Advocate Slams Victims

The coup de grace in Storm's article was that she essentially called two victims liars in order to protect her boss, Tom Corbett.

Kane's wild spin of the report's findings, including her now-retracted assertion that Sandusky continued to molest boys during the investigation, sent the unnerving message that speed, rather than care, should the new standard.

Apparently, she didn't bother reading the trial transcript in which Victim 9 was definitive that his abuse ended after July 29, 2009 when he was sixteen.  In addition, Storm is lining up behind the prosecutors who said the second victim was not credible enough to be prosecuted. 

When does a victim's advocate question a victim's story?

When her concern isn't protecting children -- it's protecting her boss.


  1. Reads as if Gov is really looking to find away out to get more votes. Does he really think that people will read this and vote for him? Also, does the BoT really think that no one is following the radical moves they are making only to cover their own butts? Sad that such a Great U can be control by a bunch of grade school, sorry middle school wannabes.

  2. Jennifer Storm was nominated by Gov Corbett in November 2013 to the $113,000 post as the state's Victim Advocate. In January 2005, shortly after Corbett was sworn-in as Attorney General, he formed the Child Predator Unit. Good idea. However, after six years as Attorney General, you would think that newly elected Gov Corbett in January 2011, would have initiated numerous laws and advocated new procedures to improve the state child protection service. Little happened until this year.

    What did Gov Corbett do? As Storm reported, Gov Corbett initiated a task force in 2011 to review state laws on child abuse. Rather than initiate legislation based on his six years as the chief law enforcement officer in the state, Corbett formed a task force that reported out in Nov 2012.

    Corbett was uninterested in the Sandusky case while collecting campaign contributions from The Second Mile network and has demonstrated little interest in child abuse advocacy for the past nine years.

    Jennifer Storm was probably ordered to defend her boss. Bottom line, Corbett's politics have placed Commonwealth children in jeopardy.

  3. Jennifer can spray all she wants in an op-ed piece. Actually, we need her out her in California to advocate for victims. Take for instance Sandusky's West Coast analog, Micheal Jackson ( and I would love to call Eileen Morgan's description of preferential sex offenders (aka boy lovers), the Micheal Jackson syndrome). As you know, Jackson's fans danced in the streets of Santa Barbara and Santa Monica when he beat sexual assault charges. The poor kids were pimped out! She should have been mingling with that crowd and setting them straight, demanding that his DVDs be stripped from store shelves and videos removed from You Tube. Now that networks are planning tributes to him, she should be beating on doors in Burbank and Culver City. Come to California, Jennifer. Duty Calls!!

  4. Storm's defense of Corbett is laughable. Storm says Corbett "did not hesitate to take on" the Sandusky case but he had no choice. Corbett was obligated to take the case when the Centre County DA had a conflict of interest because of his distant relation to Sandusky.

    Strom mentions probable cause but doesn't explain why it was lacking in 2009.

    It's also odd how no legal experts have chimed in about whether there was sufficient probable cause for an early 2009 search of Sandusky's home given that it was the alleged crime scene for a boy saying he was repeatedly sexually abused there. In addition there were the expensive gifts Sandusky gave the boy, the dozens of phone calls Sandusky made to the boy, the mother's testimony about her son's behavior, testimony by two high school officials of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior around boys and the fact that Sandusky was not authorized by Second Mile to have Second Mile boys sleeping over.

    The sad fact is that the investigation could have moved into high gear in early 2009 without any subpoenas or search warrants. Investigators could have simply asked Second Mile CEO if anyone ever complained about Sandusky's behavior around boys and Raykovitz would have told them about the 2001 shower incident at Penn State.

    Had the investigators not been ignorant of the CYS policy to destroy all files on unfounded child abuse complaints, they would have questioned all the Centre County CYS officials who conducted child abuse investigations back 20 or 30 years. That would have revealed the 1998 investigation.

    Or, given DA Ray Gricar's mysterious disappearance in 2005 they should have questioned some of his long time assistants about Sandusky, like Karen Arnold who was Asst. DA for 19 years. Arnold knew of the 1998 Sandusky investigation and was fired by incoming DA Michael Madeira in 2006.

    Simply reading Sandusky's book in early 2009 would have identified another victim, which it did a couple years later.

    Looking up old articles on Sandusky in Sports Illustrated would have revealed one or more victims as well.

  5. Corbett and Fina ignored Eschbach for 4-5 months during primary seasons and held a meeting about the presentment in 8/2009 (start of fall campaign season) w/o anyone who was advocating for presenting and only people who were advocating against. They also told Jonelle they "didn't like her tone", and then miraculously got a tip (that had been discussed in message boards for 4 years) the day AFTER TC gets elected. Politics? You decide.

  6. I wish Ms. Storm would address the bigger issue, and that is of a CHILDREN'S charity in our STATE providing a Preferential CHILD Sexual Offender ACCESS to children.

    I read the trial transcripts and was stunned as how easily Sandusky was able to contact these minors. An Adult is able to contact a minor at a Second Mile event, gain that child's home phone number, contact that child at their home, drive over and have a parent place their child in his car.

    It was that EASY?

    Were their no permission forms or waivers? Was anything arranged thru the Second Mile offices? What if this child had a physical or medical issue that would preclude them from "working out" or participating in a certain activity? What if this child had a life threatening allergy? What if this child were involved in a car accident while riding around in Sandusky's car?

    Was ANYTHING approved or signed off by the Second Mile? Where was the oversight?

    1. Wendy,
      You are on the money. Second Mile had no protections for the kids.

      You won't find one news story out there about it.


    2. Nor CMHS complete violation of every basic tenet of child protection and possibly the law in PA. Under reading of the relevant statute any logical person could think Turschetta is guilty of kidnapping Aaron Fisher, or at least of being an accomplice to kidnapping for allowing Sandusky to remove him from school.


      18 PA Const. Stat. 2901:

      (a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of kidnapping if he
      unlawfully removes another a substantial distance under the
      circumstances from the place where he is found, or if he
      unlawfully confines another for a substantial period in a place
      of isolation, with any of the following intentions:
      (1) To hold for ransom or reward, or as a shield or
      (2) To facilitate commission of any felony or flight
      (3) To inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the
      victim or another.
      (4) To interfere with the performance by public
      officials of any governmental or political function.
      (b) Grading.--Kidnapping is a felony of the first degree. A
      removal or confinement is unlawful within the meaning of this
      section if it is accomplished by force, threat or deception, or,
      in the case of a person who is under the age of 14 years or an
      incapacitated person, if it is accomplished without the consent
      of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general
      supervision of his welfare.
      (Apr. 16, 1992, P.L.108, No.24, eff. 60 days)

      My wife is an educator and confirms that even if it isn't strictly illegal (I have spoken with a child welfare lawyer who says it's questionable) it's just not acceptable behavior for a principal no matter how famous the person is. This is one reason why permission slips are often needed for field trips. Yet somehow CMHS administrators still being reported as "heroes" in media (mostly PN) for making report to CYS (even though it was an attempt to undermine AF's credibility). Sickening.