Wednesday, May 11

Mission Impossible: Shaming Sally Jenkins

After reading Jenkin's article that Penn State needs to own up for Sandusky, I was so incensed by the errors and the dubious sourcing that I emailed Sally Jenkins some "Sandusky facts" last night.  She didn't respond to the email. 

This morning, l provided her with  my email to Ron Cook to provide additional information.  Still no response.

I didn't find that surprising because in 2012, on two separate occasions I emailed Jenkins detailing the failures of PA DPW and CYS in the Sandusky case AND other cases.  She didn't respond.  

Based on her unwillingness to acknowledge the failures of anyone other than Penn State and for accusing Penn Staters of "blame shifting" when she learned of the failures of child protective services,  I must conclude that Sally Jenkins is a callous individual who would rather let children be abused, raped, tortured, and die, than admit she was/is wrong.

Last night's message follows.
Note: I wrote it from memory, thus I got confused over who attorney Tom Kline represented, thinking he represented Victims 5 and 10.  He represented Victim 5 only.  BTW, the (money grubbing) lawyer for Victim 10 was Joel Feller.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ray Blehar <>
To: "" <> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 6:17 PM
Subject: Sandusky facts

1. Sandusky wasn't convicted of a rape occurring in the showers at PSU.  Simply didn't happen.  Check the trial verdicts.  Not a single allegation by a victim that they were raped in the shower either.  Check the trial transcripts.

2. The 1971 story a complete fabrication to anyone at all familiar with how Sandusky committed his crimes.  Sandusky selected pre-teen boys whom he befriended and groomed them into becoming compliant victims.  By age 15, they had "aged out" of his preferred age group.  Sara Ganim's story of Sandusky picking up a 15 (or 17) year old hitch-hiker doesn't fit the profile.  Moreover, the concept of compliant victimization means there are not forcible attacks on victims.

3. Lawyer Tom Kline's client, Victim 5, gave three different YEARS for the incident at Penn State.  1998 (age 10), 2000 (age 11), and 2001 (age 13).  In his testimony, he stated he didn't know what an erection was.  Which year do you believe it happened?  Kline chose 2001 because he knew it would result in a larger payout.

4. Kline (sic) also represented Victim 10.  Victim 10 testified to coming into contact with Sandusky on five occasions and being inappropriately touched 3 times.  When Victim 10 was interviewed after his settlement, he stated he was like a family member of the Sandusky's.   Kline (sic) stated he was molested dozens of times over 3 years.

5. PA prosecutor Bruce Castor just announced that there is no corroborating evidence that coaches witnessed Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with children in the PSU locker rooms.

6. In 2013, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, Frank Fina, stated he found NO EVIDENCE that Paterno was involved in a cover-up.

That's correct, the lead prosecutor refuted the findings of the Freeh Report about Joe Paterno.  And just recently, the PA AG decided not to appeal the DROPPED charges against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.

It is unfortunate that you feel you can write a story about a case in 2013 (sic), not spend one iota of time on it since that time, then make a couple phone calls to very questionable sources, and think you have the basis for a story.

The salient facts of the Sandusky case are these...

In 2001, Penn State alerted the charity to Sandusky's behavior with a child in the shower in 2001.  The charity, who was responsible for the protection of the children in its care, did nothing.

Most every youth charity has rules in place to prevent one-on-one unsupervised contact between adults and children.  Sandusky's did not.

But that incident should never have happened.

The sad fact here is that child protection case workers, who knew of numerous signs that Sandusky had abused children in 1998, let him go free to continue to pluck children out of his charity.

What should have been stopped in 1998 was not.  And that wasn't Penn State's fault.  And that's not debatable.

Fast forward to 2014.

Jarrod Tutko, Jr. was found dead in a Harrisburg, PA row home -- not far from where Sara Ganim used to write for the Patriot News.

Jarrod was ten years old and weighed 19 pounds at his death. His room was covered in feces.  PA child protection case workers had been to the Tutko home over a half dozen times to investigate abuse complaints.  Like the 1998 case with Sandusky, they turned a blind eye to the abuse.

In four of every ten cases of reported child abuse in Pennsylvania where a caseworker visits a family, the child will suffer further abuse at the hands of the perpetrator.

But Penn State needs to face the up the facts??    Ha!   I think we both know who knows the facts and who doesn't.

The abuse is continuing as I write this because a high profile story about child abuse,  that could have and should have been used to reform the child welfare system in Pennsylvania, demand better training of caseworkers, and demand better oversight of child abuse investigations instead turned into a story about a famous football coach.

I hope you're proud of what you are doing.

Raymond M. Blehar


  1. Good job Ray! Like I've been saying Sally Jenkins, Sara Ganim, John Micek, and even Brad Bumsted cannot be shamed. They are without conscience. We that still have our conscience intact continue to appeal to these soulless shells of human flesh as if they may feel remorse for their organized slander. It's been 4 years and they're not correcting the false narrative they've written. Most of the public seems at a loss to understand what is happening in journalism, a profession that used to hold truth in the written word as the mark of integrity that defined the best journalists. Only money and corruption can convince the weak to give up their integrity. CNN and yes, now even the Washington Post are completely unreliable news outlets. I was truly saddened at the moment I realized The Post had crossed over from a trusted source to a corrupted source.

    I could go on about the "bigger picture" (9/11 truth suppression) and how I believe these once-great news outlets played an integral part in facilitating those crimes against humanity that day. It's the only logical reason I can see that explains the gradual implosion of their integrity since then. It's almost as if the mainstream media has driven themselves mad trying to keep it all hidden from the public. I believe this is the reason good men and women are being systematically slandered all around us now. A psychologist would call this projecting. Sociopaths become expert at projecting their sickness onto others. They will ascribe evil motives to those that are good and clean at heart. The guilty are always looking for a way to preempt questions about their crimes and motives. So projecting or ascribing their own sick deeds and traits onto the innocent is their perfected craft.

    Speaking of the guilty, have you read that Louis the Liar Freeh had a huge hand in "creating" the 28 pages? Any wonder our mainstream media is not mentioning this? Instead they are touting the 28 pages as some revelation that will set us free in the truth. Ha, just another large-scale deception that Freeh is working against the American people.

  2. "Callous, shameless," self-promoting, immoral, ignorant, lying, lazy, hack who belongs in Dante's ninth and deepest circle of hell.

  3. Great job. You should send this to her boss (Exec Editor Marty Barron or Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt) and to the paper's "reader representative" ( Or maybe polish it up and send as a letter to the editor.

  4. Sally Jenkins gives several solid facts but then contradicts them to give her smug opinions.

    She also ignores the millions Penn State put into creating an academic center for child abuse research and in educating all students and employees on reporting child abuse.

    1. Apparently, now smug opinions are accepted as facts too. So I guess it's legal to disguise conjecture as factual reporting. Didn't Louis the Liar Freeh just admit that his 8 million dollar report about Paterno, and the PSU 3 wasn't actually fact? It turns out it was only his smug opinion. People's lives and careers ruined apparently legally with smug opinions. Interesting, so when did our laws and social values change? I haven't read any headlines about it yet.