Feudale Confirms Sham Case vs. PSU 3

Feudale appears to confirm OAG wasn't going to prosecute the case against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz and that he is part of the Conspiracy of Silence that endangers children.

By

Ray Blehar

A July 14, 2013 email from Barry Feudale to the Inky's "corruption defenders" - Angela Couloumbis and Craig McCoy - appears to confirm that the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) prosecutors had no intention of trying former Penn State University (PSU) officials.

During the Sandusky trial, prosecutor Joseph McGettigan told Judge Cleland that "we're not going to try that case."  Feudale's emails shows he also got word that the prosecution of the PSU 3 was unlikely.

As I wrote here, Rod Erickson's notebook confirmed that it was Fina's intention to use the trumped up charges against Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz to get one or both to flip on former PSU President Graham Spanier.

Inky Lied: Feudale Provided Emails to AG

The Philadelphia Inquirer's report that AG Kathleen Kane surreptitiously obtained former Feudale's emails was refuted by evidence in the paper's possession.

By
Ray Blehar

In yet another case of bald-faced lying to protect Pennsylvania's corrupt network of prosecutors and judges, the Inquirer published a knowingly false story that Judge Barry Feudale did not give permission nor did he have knowledge that the Office of Attorney General (OAG) obtained his private emails.

Feudale's July 8, 2013 email to the Inquirer's Craig McCoy proves that the Inky knew Feudale turned over a very critical email to OAG Special Deputy Geoffrey Moulton.

                                          Bumbling Barry Feudale

Feudale fumble: Sent private
emails to Fina's AG account?

The Inky's October 27th story also implied that Kane had obtained the emails through surreptitious methods, but to its credit, allowed that Feudale's office security practices were quite poor.

Feudale provided his computer password to two of his secretaries, plus had it written on a Post It note on a pull out shelf in his desk. Additionally, the absent minded judge also kept the key to his office under the base of the American flag in the grand jury room.

In other words, any number of individuals could have accessed Feudale's office.  But that didn't stop the bumbling judge from acting as if he was the victim of the crime of the century.

"I am outraged by the invasion of my privacy. It shouldn't happen to anybody.  It not only upsets me, it saddens me."

But it gets even worse for Bumbling Barry....

After the paper's latest attempted smear, AG Kane informed the Inky's "corruption defenders" that Feudale's private emails were on the OAG's servers.

Citing yet another anonymous source (likely Frank Fina), the Inky reported that Feudale sent his private emails to a former top prosecutor (likely Frank Fina) in the attorney general's office.

Oops!

But just when you thought things couldn't go any lower,  the Inky, Fina, and others in the corrupt network are questioning the ethics of Kane for not notifying Feudale that he accidentally left a trail of criminal evidence on a government computer system and then exposing his criminal behavior to the public.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!

Feudale oversaw the Bonusgate investigation that was also plagued by leaks.  The Sandusky grand jury investigation, which he also oversaw, was plagued by leaks to newspapers.

And now Feudale has been caught leaking secret information again.

Does the Inky really think the public is stupid enough to believe that Kane is the person with a leak problem?

Franco Harris: We Are In This Together

“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” --Buddha

In the first year or so after the Sandusky scandal broke, we continuously faced setback after setback in our quest for the Truth and during that time the media had their own agenda and created a false narrative about Penn State and Joe Paterno that still exists today. This false narrative created fear and people distanced themselves from Joe and Penn State.

However, this past Saturday night Joe Paterno was inducted into the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame. I believe this is the first honor bestowed upon Joe since the scandal. Jay Paterno accepted this honor on behalf of his father and the Paterno family. He gave an amazing speech that I can only describe as a “moment of Truth” for the world to hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaBexQx9rmo&feature=youtu.be (watch speech)

http://www.votejaypaterno.com/#!pa-hall-of-fame-speech/sizgc (read speech)

Joe told us to find the Truth. I know it’s been tough and we have faced many difficult challenges, but we won’t give up, we will keep seeking the Truth.

We are not there yet, but this honor shows that we are moving forward and that our path to the Truth is having an impact. “Success is walking from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.”

We want people to know that this has never been about football. This is beyond football. This is about who WE ARE. It’s what we do that defines us.

Penn State is our second home. Joe Paterno is our family.

WE ARE in this together.

Franco 10/26/15

Jay Paterno: HoF Speech Calls Out False Narrative

Jay Paterno calls out "false narrative" during Hall of Fame tribute to his father.

By
Ray Blehar


At Joe Paterno's Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame induction ceremony, Jay Paterno took to the microphone to give a speech before receiving the honor on behalf of his father.

But rather than simply pay tribute to the accomplishments of his father, Jay did exactly as his father would have done.

Confronted "false narrative" head on 

Jay recognized that the honor given to Joe Paterno was an honor shared by all Penn Staters.  He also made the point that you don't have to have a degree from Penn State to be a Penn Stater.  It was -- is -- about a shared set of values.

Success with honor.

Much like myself, Jay really didn't think much about the removal of Joe Paterno's statue.  The bronze cast of Joe, with his finger raised aloft for number one, wasn't the Joe we all knew.   

Franco Harris Backs Judge Anne Covey: 'Smart. Tough. Right'

Judge Covey is best known as the trial judge in the case of Corman v. NCAA. Judge Covey authored the opinion that ruled the Endowment Act constitutional and brought the NCAA to their knees by making them prove the validity of the NCAA Consent Decree.

We need Judge Covey to keep fighting for the values of Pennsylvanians.  

As your Supreme Court Justice, Anne Covey will uphold our Constitution and continue to conduct herself fairly, ethically and professionally.

Media Chose to Ignore Failures At The Second Mile

Violations of the CPSL and other failures to protect children by The Second Mile were ignored by the media -- in order to sell newspapers.

By
Ray Blehar

Had Jerry Sandusky been a Boy Scout leader, there likely would not have been a "sex scandal" at Penn State University (PSU).

Imagine the following scenario...


Upon receiving a report that local Scoutmaster Jerry Sandusky had been observed showering with a boy, late at night in a seemingly abandoned PSU locker room, University officials reported the incident to the Board of Sandusky's Boy Scout troop.  

After being informed of the incident, a discussion ensued among a small group of the troop's  Board members.  One very prominent member stood up and defended Sandusky's actions,  stating he didn't think it was a big deal that a scoutmaster had showered with one of the scouts.  He added that men and children shower every day at the YMCA and the issue seemed to be a "non-starter."  He told the other Board members not to take it to the full Board for a decision.  The report was stopped dead in its tracks.

Ten years later, Sandusky was charged with the abuse of 8 boy scouts.  The investigative report revealed that PSU officials had alerted the Boy Scout troop about Sandusky and that its Board took no action.  As a result, more scouts were subjected to abuse.

What would the media have done with this information?

Would it have blamed PSU for not fulfilling its "moral obligation" to protect the boy scouts? 

Or would it have put the blame where it belonged -- on the scout troop's board?

The answer is obvious, given that there were cover ups of prior sex abuse cases in the Boy Scouts.  It would have become a story of national interest

But The Second Mile (TSM) wasn't the Boy Scouts. 

 As one PSU graduate in journalism recently tweeted....

Selling newspapers and getting clicks trumps the truth every time.

Note the next tweet by Amy Z. Quinn's employer....

There are numerous ways that so-called journalists could reference Jerry Sandusky, such as "convicted child molester" or "serial child molester," however, as the latter tweet confirmed, the media didn't believe that Sandusky's name was nearly as important (to garnering readers) as his association with PSU.

Sadly, that has been the case from the alleged leak of the Sandusky charges and subsequent press release by the Office of Attorney General (OAG).  The press ran with the OAG's story apparently without the least bit of fact checking.

Had they done any research at all, they would have learned that the unknown charity called The Second Mile (TSM) was located in a county with a history of covering up serial child sex abuse cases.  A former TSM board member, Judge Bradley Lunsford, was involved in one of the decisions that kept the lid on a prior abuse case. 

So much for investigative journalism.

The media pack pushed on, ignored TSM, made Sandusky a secondary player in the scandal, put Penn State at the forefront, and totally whiffed on the lessons learned and improvements for protecting children that should have emanated from the scandal.

Wensilver Responds To Heim Coin Toss Flap

The recent “coin toss” controversy this month regarding the Co-Founder and long-time Board Member of Sandusky’s Second Mile children’s charitable non-profit, Mr. Bruce Heim, opened the door slightly for the media and the public to re-focus their questions on the role of the Second Mile leadership in their failures to protect children.  

Penn State President Barron rescinded the honorary Army/PSU game opening coin toss invitation to Mr. Heim after a flood of complaints from well-informed alumni.  Alumni that have been questioning the leadership decisions at Second Mile since the scandal broke in late 2011.  More specifically, alumni have questioned the actions of charity CEO and licensed child psychologist, Dr. Jack Raykovitz, on addressing Sandusky's conduct, which was reported to him in 2001, and PSU's subsequent banning of Second Mile clients from the campus. 

We've heard nothing on the Second Mile until this coin toss controversy and Mr. Heim's compulsion to reply to complaints via an Op-Ed on October 7th in a local State College publication.  
 In it, Mr. Heim voices his displeasure on the revoking of this coin toss honorarium, complains of being dishonored, and laments that with benefit of hindsight, he wished he had done more. Yet he also admits to both his and charity Executive Director, Dr. Jack Raykovitz’s roles in concealing PSU’s 2001 complaint from the Second Mile Board at large, the Second Mile staffers and charity volunteers. 

Mr. Heim admits to the agreed upon concealment of facts from others in charity leadership positions. Facts, that had they been escalated by a concerned parent about their charity figurehead's conduct with minors, would very likely have led to bad publicity for the Second Mile.  That is an issue any full Board of a children's charity needs to know about.

Mr. Heim’s statement that the Second Mile didn’t have “some culpability” in the scandal and that contrary opinions are based on “conjecture” is a demonstration of his own ignorance of the charity’s legal requirements and the facts in evidence. 

One has to ask that as an involved, decades-long board member and Co-Founder with Sandusky of a Pennsylvania children’s charitable non-profit, why Mr. Heim was not educated on the standards of safe conduct for adults working with children, and more specifically, reporting requirements in Pennsylvania?  

Mr. Heim states this “It never occurred as a possibility until the release of the 2011 Grand Jury presentment that shocked a nation, destroyed a great charity, devastated a town, impugned a university, and by implication its wide alumni base, and maligned a personal friend, partner, and icon who did everything he was supposed to do with the information he had: Joe Paterno.” 

However, Mr. Heim confesses in his Op-Ed that the break in the reporting chain was among the leadership at Second Mile.  Therefore there was never a “cover up” among the administrators at Penn State, least of all with Mr. Paterno. The Second Mile was legally mandated to follow up on institutional complaints on its employee’s conduct with minors, investigate it, possibly report it to outside agencies and implement a written safety plan as per state mandate.

That never happened.

Bruce Heim's Letter Provides Learning Opportunities

The breakdowns in PA's child protection system were lost in the sensational reporting about Penn State's role in the Sandusky scandal.  Bruce Heim's letter provides another opportunity to highlight them.

By
Ray Blehar

Bruce Heim's October 7th guest op-ed (Bruce Heim: Shedding Light on The Second Mile's Decision Making) provides us with a number of opportunities to learn about how the system broke down and enabled Sandusky to perpetrate crimes for over a decade.

The mistakes by the county agencies and  The Second Mile have garnered little attention, but had the correct steps been taken, children may have been spared from abuse. 

Heim:  "At the time [2001], The Second Mile had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, which was not reported to us."

By law, Centre County Office of Children and Youth Services (CYS) was required to notify The Second Mile within 24 hours of receiving the 1998 abuse allegations against Sandusky.  The purpose of the notification was to ensure that the charity put a plan of supervision in place to protect program participants while Sandusky was under investigation.  

That didn't happen.

According to the 1998 University Park police report, Sandusky continued to contact the two children who were subjects of the investigation.  Both children were participants in the charity's activities. In addition, according to court documents, Sandusky was accessing Victim 4 - another participant - during this period.

The law also states that in instances where the county agency has passed the responsibility for investigating to the regional office or the Department, as it did in 1998, it still maintains responsibility for the plan of supervision and other notifications.

About ten years later, similar failures occurred.

Charity did not put
approved plan in place
after the 2009 finding

Heim:  "Upon receipt of the 2008 report, it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities."

In 2008, Clinton County CYS was the investigating agency and it also failed its oversight duties.  Clinton County CYS Director, Gerald Rosamilia, erred by assuming that because Sandusky was no longer accessing the subject (Aaron Fisher) that no plan of supervision was needed.  

As noted above, The Second Mile was required to develop a plan of supervision to ensure Sandusky did not have access to children.  However, the law also required the plan be approved by the county agency and kept on file until the closure of the investigation.

By the charity's own admission, it kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  It did not inform program participants or the public.  It is doubtful that such a plan would have been approved by Clinton County CYS or DPW.

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009.   Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010. 

Similar failures, ten years apart by two different county agencies, reveals that child protection employees were not well versed in their responsibilities to keep children safe during investigations.  

The evidence also shows that The Second Mile did not comply with the law by failing to get its plan of supervision approved and that its plan was insufficient for protecting children.

Mr. Heim's statement that The Second Mile didn't have "some culpability" in the scandal and that contrary opinions are based "on conjecture," is based on ignorance.

And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

CDT: Full letter to the editor regarding Heim

My recent letter to the editor was cut-off at the half way point.  I contacted the CDT about the error and hopefully it will be corrected soon.  

Until then, here is the full letter, plus the relevant laws.

Recent letter writers to the CDT believe it was wrong for Penn State to rescind its invitation to Bruce Heim to participate in the coin-toss prior to the Penn State - Army football game.  Both writers believe that it was a simple case of guilt by association (to The Second Mile) that drove Penn State's decision. 

Both writers also appear to share the opinion of Bruce Heim, who in response to the coin-toss flap, stated The Second Mile had no culpability in the Sandusky scandal and that opinions otherwise were based on “conjecture.”

The evidence and the law proves those opinions are wrong. 

Bruce Heim was among the charity's decision makers about handling the Sandusky matter. Heim stated: “Upon receipt of the 2008 report [when Sandusky informed the board he was under investigation], it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities.”

What Heim didn’t say was that the charity kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  The charity also did not inform program participants or the public. 

The law required The Second Mile to have their plan of supervision (i.e., ban from “kid related activities”) approved by the county agency. The law also required the plan kept on file by the county until the closure of the investigation.

Those things didn’t happen. 

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009. Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010. 

In short, the Second Mile's plan of supervision was ineffective.

Statements that The Second Mile - or that anyone besides Sandusky - didn't have "some culpability" are simply not supported by the law or the evidence.

RAYMOND BLEHAR

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

The legal requirement for The Second Mile to put an approved plan of supervision in place follows:

§ 6303.  Definitions.

"Child-care services."  Includes any of the following:

(1)  Child day-care centers.

(2)  Group day-care homes.

(3)  Family child-care homes.

(4)  Foster homes.

(5)  Adoptive parents.

(6)  Boarding homes for children.

(7)  Juvenile detention center services or programs for delinquent or dependent children.

(8)  Mental health services for children.

(9)  Services for children with intellectual disabilities.

(10)  Early intervention services for children.

(11)  Drug and alcohol services for children.

(12)  Day-care services or programs that are offered by a school.

(13)  Other child-care services that are provided by or subject to approval, licensure, registration or certification by the department or a county social services agency or that are provided pursuant to a contract with the department or a county social services agency.

§ 6368.  Investigation of reports.

(i)  Investigation concerning a school or child-care service employee.--

(1)  Upon notification that an investigation involves suspected child abuse by a school or child-care service employee, including, but not limited to, a service provider, independent contractor or administrator, the school or child-care service shall immediately implement a plan of supervision or alternative arrangement for the individual under investigation to ensure the safety of the child and other children who are in the care of the school or child-care service.

(2)  The plan of supervision or alternative arrangement shall be approved by the county agency and kept on file with the agency until the investigation is completed.

PS4RS: Heim's letter proves no cover up at PSU

This letter to the editor appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review on October 9th, 2015

A coin toss is often used to resolve a dispute. Last week’s Penn State-Army coin toss certainly did just that, but the dispute was far from the playing field. When news broke that Bruce Heim, former board member of The Second Mile was chosen to take part in a ceremonious pregame coin toss, Penn State alumni and supporters voiced disapproval. The invitation was swiftly revoked. But make no mistake: as a result of Heim’s public acknowledgement that he had been made aware of the 2001 Sandusky incident, a major dispute was resolved. 

There was no “Conspiracy of Silence" at Penn State.

 

In several different reports last week, Heim indicated that it was his decision to keep The Second Mile board in the dark when former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley notified then-TSM CEO Jack Raykovitz in 2001 that Jerry Sandusky – a TSM employee -- had been seen showering with a boy in the Lasch Building.

 

Tim Curley not only followed reporting rules, he exceeded them, according to a 2001 statute. Raykovitz, however, as a mandatory reporter, ignored TSM’s legal obligations and did nothing to pursue the report.

 

It has never been a matter of a coin toss for the members of Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship. We’ve continually questioned why Penn State administrators have been held responsible for mistakes made by The Second Mile. With no clear case against these Penn State officials, PS4RS calls for the Office of the Attorney General to drop charges against them.

 

Maribeth Roman Schmidt

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship
Email: mschmidt@ps4rs.org
Cell: 215.620.4210

Kudravetz: Case Against PSU Even Weaker After Heim's Letter

Published October 8, 2015 

PennLive.com

In light of recent comments by former Second Mile Vice Chairman Bruce Heim, I'd like to submit the following:

Heim made comments recently after being disinvited from the Penn State football game coin toss. He indicated that he did not think Jerry Sandusky had done anything wrong; Sandusky showering with kids was not considered unusual; and he did not think at the time that Sandusky was a pedophile. 

These comments raise important questions with respect to the entire Sandusky matter.

Penn State reported the 2001 shower incident to The Second Mile, Sandusky's employer. The 2001 statute was followed, even exceeded, by Penn State. Thus, there was no cover-up or "conspiracy of silence" by Penn State.

Conversely, The Second Mile violated the law when it chose not to report the 2001 shower incident to child protective services. The Second Mile leadership also consciously withheld Penn State's report from its board of directors.

Why, then, were the Penn State administrators charged with failure to report and a cover-up? And why, as mandated reporters, were the leaders of The Second Mile not charged at all?

The Office of Attorney General should drop the charges against the Penn State administrators immediately. It has no case, and it never did.

JANET PARKHILL KUDRAVETZ, Arlington, Virginia

TSM's 2001 Decision Driven By Money

The Second Mile's demise began after Sandusky's abuse became known in 2009 and it collapsed when his abuse allegations went public in 2011.   It is likely that Heim suspected the same would happen in 2001 - if the word got out about Sandusky.

By
Ray Blehar

I've used the term "elephant in the room" quite a bit in this scandal.   However, for the Sandusky scandal it is more like the herd of elephants in the room.

In November 2011, many people who read the grand jury presentment immediately saw the elephant -- if not two or three -- in the room.  The media apparently wasn't as astute or were influenced not to look, because the following were pretty obvious:

Elephant #1:   The illogical situation that PSU officials, who were not mandated reporters, were charged with failure to report child abuse but The Second Mile's  Dr. Jack Raykovitz, a mandated reporter, wasn't. 

Elephant #2:  The illogical situation that Penn State was accused of covering up for a retired football coach, who had nothing to do with the football program, but somehow TSM wasn't accused of covering up for its founder, face, and top fundraiser.

Elephant #3:  That irrational argument that giant Penn State University (PSU) couldn't weather the storm of bad publicity surrounding a Sandusky abuse investigation and somehow the same scenario didn't apply the charity.

Shockingly, throughout this almost four year ordeal, no one in the media has made the case that TSM had more incentive to cover up than PSU did -- but history, and money, tells the story.

Financial Incentive

TSM's financial records from 2008 to 2012 go a long way in explaining why Bruce Heim may have advised Raykovitz to not report the 2001 incident to the full board of TSM and why neither man reported the incident to child protective services.

They both knew the importance of Sandusky to the charity and if word got out about his penchant for showering with boys, the charity would have gone under -- or maybe worse. 

Board of Director$ Not Told

According to a former Board member, the charity had a goal of 100% director financial support for each event.  Thus if Board members didn't share Heim's view that an adult showering with boys was "normal" behavior, they might abandon the charity.  

And who would want to be associated with a charity that approved of its founder showering with kids?

In addition, the Directors were very influential in getting other well-to-do individuals to donate money.  So if they walked, the charity stood to lose a lot of money.

In 2009, after the charity learned of Sandusky's abuse finding, 16 directors left its board.  

Key Losses:  All of the attorneys (6) who were on the Board in 2008, including Centre County Judge, Bradley Lunsford, called it quits after they learned Sandusky was under investigation.    A couple other notable departures were PSU BOT member Ira Lubert, who vacated his position on the Board of the Southeast Region, Drew Garban, the son of PSU BOT member Steve Garban, and Drue Anne Schreyer, daughter of former PSU BOT chairman, William Schreyer.

Gains: TSM tried to compensate in 2009 by recruiting new directors, including Senator Jake Corman, recent PSU BOT member Cliff Benson, businessman Louis Sheetz, and former PSU and NFL football player turned ESPN broadcaster, Matt Millen.   Sheetz noted that Sandusky resigned at the very first board meeting he attended, so it's rather obvious that he didn't know what he was getting into.  

But things would just go downhill from 2009 forward.

Child Protective Services and Sandusky

Sandusky missed  the 2009 TSM golf tournament.
Pictured R. McCombie, B. Gelzheiser, and Heim

In 2001, if TSM went forward and did what they were required by law to do -- report Sandusky to child protective services - then the charity would have had to put a safety plan in place to keep Sandusky away from children.  

Sandusky's absence at children's events would have raised questions -- just as his absence from the 2009 TSM (golf) Classic did.  

As the records show, as Sandusky circled the drain and eventually went down, so did the charity's revenues. To wit:


2007 (year ending 8/31/2008):   $3,219,219   
. 
Abuse finding January 2009.  Sandusky misses 2009 golf tournament.  16 Board members left.

2008 (Year ending 8/31/2009): $2,272,084

Sandusky resignation (internally communicated) due to abuse finding, September 2009.

2009 (Year ending 8/31/2010): $1,227,178

Sandusky's public "retirement." September 2010.

2010 (Year ending 8/31/2011): $1,012,015

Public announcement of Sandusky arrest, November 2011.

2011 (Year ending 8/31/2012): $330,588

TSM announces intent to close its doors.

2012 (Year ending 8/31/2013): $87,121

The Money Tells The Story

The original internal announcement of Sandusky's abuse finding, followed by his resignation - neither of which was reported to the public - resulted in over a $1 million dollar per year decline in direct donations.  

Those results indicate the Director's influence regarding direct donations and fundraising, which is a much more plausible explanation of Heim's advice against sharing the 2001 incident with the full board.

However, the decision by TSM not to report Sandusky to child protective services was likely a "no brainer."  A child abuse investigation was a risk to the charity's reputation and financial well-being.  

Instead, the choice in 2001 put children at risk and many were harmed as a result.

And that's the biggest elephant in the room.

Next: Bruce Heim's Op-Ed Provides Another Teachable Moment

Heim Wrong: 2001 Incident Was a Big Deal

Bruce Heim states no one at The Second Mile thought "Jerry was a pedophile."  The "red flags" in the charity's financial records tell another story.

By

Ray Blehar

Heim: Men shower with kids at the YMCA.

In August 2012, Bruce Heim called the 2001 incident a "nonstarter" because he saw kids showering with Sandusky over a five year period.

More recently, Heim doubled down on his conclusion that the incident was not inappropriate when he repeated to the  Pittsburgh Post Gazette, "at the YMCA men shower with kids every day."

Heim also claimed that Penn State's AD TIm Curley told his charity that nothing inappropriate happened.  

Of course, if that were true, then why did Curley bother to meet with the charity to inform them that Sandusky was banned from using the facilities with Second Mile kids? 

Heim's story doesn't hold (shower) water.

Furthermore, Heim contends that the charity didn't do anything wrong and that they didn't think Jerry was a pedophile.  As I wrote here, the charity did plenty wrong.  Some of their actions should have resulted in criminal charges.

But the remaining question is: what did they know (about Sandusky) and when did they know it?

Remember that was the task of Lynne Abraham to find out -- until someone decided that finding out wasn't necessary because the charity was closing its doors. 

Well, guess what?  

Contrary to popular rumor, The Second Mile (TSM) didn't close its doors in 2012, 2013, or 2014.   As of August 31, 2013 the charity still had $4.1 million in assets.  That filing was provided to the IRS on January 12, 2015.

If you want to separate facts from Heim's and everyone else's fiction in this scandal, follow the money.  

Financial Disclosures = No Knowledge of the 1998 Incident

According to the Commonwealth's Public Welfare Code (PWC) and Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), Centre County CYS was required to notify TSM of Sandusky's 1998 investigation and ensure that a protection plan was put in place.  The 1998 police report confirms no such plan was put in place because Sandusky continued to access - stalk - children while under investigation.

The "county agency" was also required (by the PWC) to notify TSM at the conclusion of the investigation.  In a Patriot News interview, former TSM fund raiser, Bonnie Marshall, stated that former TSM Executive Director, told her the charity was only aware of the 2001 incident prior to learning about Aaron Fisher's allegation in 2009.

The financial records (disclosures) appear to confirm TSM was unaware of Sandusky's close call in 1998, but the records show the 2001 incident was very much a serious concern for the charity.

Note: While financial records do not support the charity learning of the 1998 incident, other evidence indicates that at least one member of TSM learned of the incident.

Salary Changes = Concern Over 2001 Incident

In 1999 and 2000, Raykovitz's salary rose 10% and Genovese rose at 7% year over year. For 2001, their salary increases abruptly leveled off.  Raykovitz's salary rose just 2% while Genovese's rose 4%.  

From 2001 to 2008, Dr. Raykovitz's salary increased by 33% -- rising from $99,699 in $138,279 (or a total increase of $38,630).  Over that same time frame, Katherine Genovese's salary rose 48% -- from $68,058 in 2001 to $106,013 in 2008 (or a total increase of $37,965).   Both of their salaries dropped in again 2009 -- following Sandusky being under investigation for child sexual abuse.  

The precipitous drop in the average staff salary was driven by increasing the number of employees from 28 to 99.  The magnitude of the change raises eyebrows. 

Did TSM hire 71 people or was this accounting sleight of hand to lower the average salary cost of the charity?

If the 2001 incident was a "nonstarter" or not a cause for concern - as Heim contended, why did the raises decrease that year?  And why again a similar decrease in 2009 after the abuse finding?

Changes in reporting in the charity's financial reports tend to occur around Sandusky related events.  In other words, these are "red flags."

Changes in Grants = Concern Over 2001 Incident

The 2001 incident appears to have driven changes in how the charity reported the "education grants" it provided to former TSM participants who were enrolling in college.

On their 1998 to 2000 IRS 990 forms, TSM reported the amount of grants to students on line 22 and attached a schedule including all names of the grantees to the report.  

The 2001 report continued to report the amount of grants on line 22, the schedule was not itemized, by individual grantee, as required by the reporting rules.  Instead, it just reported the lump some and the purpose of the grants. 

After 2002, TSM quit reporting these funds as grants and started recording them as Miscellaneous expenses on line 43c (2004-2008). In 2003, they were reported on line 43e. None of these lines required the filing of a schedule.

In 2009, TSM began reporting Grants again -- now on Lines 1 and 2 of their Functional Expense report.  However, TSM only provided an itemized schedule for Line 1 and continued to not itemize by individual grantee for educational grants. 

Therefore, a similar pattern of reporting existed in which reporting changed in 2001, after a close call, and then changed again in 2009 after Sandusky's abuse finding. 

It seems rather obvious, with the benefit of shredder truck hindsight, why the charity quickly stopped providing itemized listings of grantees right after the 2001 incident.

The changes in TSM's financial disclosures in 2001, particularly the elimination of names attached to grants, indicate that the charity understood that Sandusky's behaviors with children might bring about an investigation in which the names of children would provide leads.

2001 was very a big deal to TSM.