Friday, July 29

Summary of My Opperman Interview

Summarizing a two hour show isn't easy.  

I'll begin by getting to the BOTTOM LINE of interview and then highlighting the evidence, including new information (or lesser reported information) that should make for an interesting read for those of you who don't have two hours to listen.  

But after you read this, you'll want to listen.

Sunday, July 24

Ray Blehar on The Opperman Report - 7.23.2016

ICMYI:  Listen to the two hour interview here:

I talk about Sandusky's modus operandi, how he worked the system, The Second Mile, the 1998 and 2001 incidents and PSU responses, Ray Gricar, and a lot of other topics -- including NEW information.

It was a fun interview and I'm sure you'll enjoy it as much as I did.

Saturday, July 23

Former Penn State Player Responds to recent Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial

In response to an editorial published by the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 18, 2016, former Penn State football player, Christian Marrone, wrote the following response.  Unfortunately, the Inquirer did not see fit to publish his comments or to present alternative points of view.  


By Christian Marrone

Former Penn State football
 player Christian Marrone

As a former Penn State Football player who proudly signed the Letterman’s letter of July 5, 2016 requesting that the university restore the statue, honor Joe Paterno and apologize to his family, I am compelled to respond to your July 18, 2016 editorial in which you unfairly excoriate those who coached and played football at Penn State.

Since November 2011, I’ve read the Inquirer’s coverage – and editorializing -- of a false narrative based on nothing more than a rush to judgment. Sadly, your paper has favored sensationalism that sells papers over simple fact finding and due process. Long after he has been laid to rest, my coach, Joe Paterno -- who was never charged with committing, witnessing or covering up a crime – has been indicted by your paper over and over again in nearly every Penn State news cycle, without any real consideration for the facts. But shamefully, you have never once penned a single editorial that exposes the accountability of The Second Mile or the shortcomings of Pennsylvania’s child protective services that rubber-stamped Jerry Sandusky as an adoptive parent for decades. Arguably, it was you, the media, who made it about football when you chose to write about statues instead of the undisputed gateways to Sandusky’s victims.

Friday, July 22


By Barry Bozeman

Hello again PSU friends - this will be my first post on SMSS since the Summer of 2014 and I have missed the interaction from here in East Tennessee.

Some of you may recall that I started SMSS and the FREEHDOM FIGHTERS beginning in January of 2012 after 2 or 3 months of active participation on the Penn State sports site begun with this post  Outsider's View of PSU and the National Narrative on Nov 20, 2011

For a time this SMSS site joined with Walter Uhler, Mark Rubin of Tom in Paine, and John Ziegler to form the Framing Paterno group combining our efforts in the search for Truth following the addition of Ray Blehar as my partner and co-author of this website. 

Today I learned that Walter Uhler's website was hacked last August and it closed down with all content lost.

Some of that excellent content remains available in the Walter Uhler archive on The Smirking Chimp. Walter's article LYNCHING JOE PATERNO IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION published Nov 9 2011 was just the beginning of a number of excellent informative pieces from this PSU graduate with 2 BAs and a Master's Degree. 

Walter wrote me today regarding his response to New York Daily News, sportswriter, Evan Grossman…

“In response to shamelessly sensationalistic news articles in the mainstream media that virtually indicted Joe Paterno for supposedly ignoring a 14-year old boy in 1976, who claimed to have been molested by Jerry Sandusky, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Centre Daily Times which gave reasons why I thought the allegation was false. That letter was published on 14 July 2016. Within days, Evan Grossman, writing for the New York Daily News, wrote a column titled: "Joe Paterno apologists are blind to reality, unwilling to face facts about ex-Penn State coach." In Mr. Grossman's view, Paterno apologists live in a reprehensible fact-free bubble similar to those occupied by "9/11 truthers" and Trump-style  "birthers." Finding that my letter to the Centre Daily Times was cited by Mr. Grossman as a representative example of a  fact-denying Paterno apologist,  I felt compelled to write him the letter included below to show him the errors in his analysis.”  

Thursday, July 21

Feckless Exhibit 4: Keith Masser

This is installment four of a multi-part opinion/analysis series that will highlight some interesting information about current and former members of the Penn State University Board of Trustees. Exhibit 4:  Keith Masser, outgoing Chairman of the Board

by BHF23

Inspired by the doggedness of crack CNN reporter Sara Ganim as she chronicles the path and magnitude of the meteorological disaster du jour, I’ve put together a brief timeline of Chairman of the Board Keith Masser’s wide swath of destruction as a Penn State trustee. An estimate of the damage attributable in whole or in part to Masser will be represented by the following scale:

$- “He said what?”
$$- “Ooh…that might cost ‘em!”
$$$- “Oh, yeah…that’s gonna cost ‘em, all right!”
$$$$- “Uh oh.”

Wednesday, July 20

PS4RS Letter Calls To Disqualify Lubert as BOT Chair

Lubert’s ties to Sandusky’s charity should disqualify him from chairmanship

MEMO To: Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees
From: Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship
c.c: Governor Tom Wolf; Auditor General Eugene
DePasquale; Solicitor General Bruce Castor
Date: July 19, 2016
Re: Chairman Election
The leadership of Penn State has been under intense national scrutiny for nearly five full years. Rumors, accusations and unsupported conclusions — but very few proven facts — have divided our community and unfairly damaged the reputation of our fine university.

PS4RS Statement on PMA Document Release

PS4RS Statement on PMA Insurance Documents Release

July 12, 2016 — Today, a Philadelphia judge released settlement records relative to Penn State’s ongoing dispute with PMA Insurance. The insurance carrier had previously declined coverage of $93 million in claims that the University had already dispersed to more than 30 Sandusky accusers.
Files released today provide no additional or definitive information with regard to Joe Paterno’s knowledge of accusations that allegedly date back to the 1970s. In fact, they raise even more questions as to the University’s overall liability, given the fact that most of the claimants were not part of the original Sandusky court proceedings, spoke only through depositions represented by their attorneys, and have not had their accusations corroborated nor substantiated in a court of law.

Tuesday, July 19

Feckless Exhibit #3: Mark Dambly

This is installment three of a multi-part opinion/analysis series that will highlight some interesting information about current and former members of the Penn State University Board of Trustees. Exhibit 3:  Mark Dambly.

by BHF23

After reviewing the previous installments of the series, I realize that our examination of the November 2011 trustees has suffered from a complete absence of two things: 1. feck; and 2. actual convictions.

Let’s talk about Mark Dambly. 

While a student at Penn State in 1979, Mark Dambly pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge and spent five days jail following an altercation in downtown State College.  Those close to the story called it a "sweetheart deal."  You can read the details below.

Friday, July 15

FRAUD? PSU Paid Freeh $260K for 1st Claim

Recent documents show that not only did PSU fail to properly vet claims, but it also very likely attempted to use their insurance coverage to pay for Freeh's phony investigation

Ray Blehar

Penn State University paid $260,626.31 to Louis Freeh for work allegedly done with regard to the first claim made by John Doe A

Exhibit G of the most recent document dump confirms that an October 2013 Penn State University (PSU) letter (at 7) asked that the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association Insurance Company (PMA) reimburse PSU for the settlement amount, alleged investigative work done by Louis Freeh, and the negotiations conducted by Feinberg Rozen. 

Wednesday, July 13

WaPo Chooses Sensationalism Over Facts

The Washington Post's front page story today about the allegations made in claimant settlement depositions is another example of the media choosing to sensationalize a story by ignoring the facts

Ray Blehar

Since November 4, 2011, the media coverage of the Sandusky case has ignored the facts in order to provide sensational stories that defy common sense and logic.  Unfortunately, the media knows that the American public is willing to accept almost any story that tears down an icon or an institution.  

Examples include the Duke Lacrosse team, the University of Virginia Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, and the ongoing case of Penn State and Joe Paterno.   The two former cases made headlines and spawned many articles before the media figured out they were false.  

Monday, July 11

Statement on Return of JVP Statue

It is long past the time Penn State University sets the record straight on the Sandusky scandal and there's no better way to do it than by saying it as Joe's statue is returned to its spot next to Beaver Stadium.  Here's what PSU should finally say.

Ray Blehar

On November 9, 2011, a small group of members of the Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) removed Joe Paterno from his coaching position without a review of the available facts and without a vote.  

On July 22, 2012, former PSU President Rodney Erickson unilaterally, that is without a vote, decided to remove Paterno's statue.  Erickson did so based on a report by former FBI director Louis Freeh that similarly was not reviewed.  

Louis Freeh, facing a defamation lawsuit over statements made in his report now claims he was simply offering opinions.  At the time of his national press conference, he referred to his opinions as "reasonable conclusions."   

Those conclusions were unquestioningly accepted by the media and reported as facts -- especially those concerning Joe Paterno.  

Today is the day to set the record straight.

Thursday, July 7

Media, Freeh, Dishonor Victims

The media, who blindly accepted the Freeh Report, are dishonoring the Sandusky victims -- just as Louis Freeh's report does.

Ray Blehar

According to the Freeh Report (at 15), it was the lure of Penn State's prestigious football program that enabled Jerry Sandusky to victimize children.

"Indeed, that continued access provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims."

The trial verdicts prove that statement is wrong.  Sandusky continued to victimize children after 2001 and into late 2009, but none of those crimes happened on the Penn State campus.

However, Freeh's statement also dishonors the victims by inferring that they would subject themselves to repeated sexual victimization all for the opportunity to watch a Penn State football game or workout in the football facilities.

Freeh's thesis is consistent with the shallowness of his report.   

And those in the media that blindly cling to that thesis (e.g., Dan Bernstein, Sally Jenkins, Christine Brennan, et al) are low intelligence life forms who couldn't care less about the victims.

In fact, the media never told the real stories of the victims.  

Instead, it focused on only the parts of their testimony that could be sensationalized: the sexual acts and evidence related to PSU.

The (Phony) Freeh Report
Had Louis Freeh actually conducted a real investigation and determined how Sandusky attracted his victims, he would have provided a very sad, but true story about how Sandusky sought out the children who lacked the most basic of human needs -- food, shelter, and love (or family).

The evidence was all there.

It was in the victim's testimony.  

It was in the evidence exhibits.

But none of those things factored into a report that had a predetermined outcome to place the blame on PSU officials.  

As Freeh concocted his fraudulent report, he also dishonored the victims.

The Victim's Stories
By and large, Sandusky's victims were not drawn to him because of the Penn State football program.  In fact, some of the later victims had no idea he was formerly a football coach.

To them, Jerry Sandusky was a hero because of his kindness and attentiveness to their needs.

The victims of Sandusky mostly grew up impoverished with barely a roof over their heads.  They shared beds with their siblings. At least one home didn't have running water. 

But with Jerry it was very different.

Jerry let the boys stay at his home.  They got to choose where they slept, upstairs in their own bed or in a private basement bedroom.

The basement was filled with things that would be dreams for them to have -- an air hockey table, a pool table, and a computer with computer games.

But according to Louis Freeh it was the lure of the football facilities that provided "very currency that allowed him to attract his victims."  

The media bought it.  Penn Staters knew better.

The impoverished environment in which these boys grew up lacked the most basic necessity of all - food.   As one victim stated, a trip to McDonald's was a rare treat, but it only occurred at the beginning of the month -- when the check arrived.

With Jerry it was very different.

They ate at his home around the dinner table.  They were part of family and group picnics.  Food was plentiful and provided by their "hero."

And of course, their hero took them to  "nice expensive restaurants" like Ruby Tuesday and Texas Road House.

But according to Louis Freeh it was the lure of the football facilities that provided "very currency that allowed him to attract his victims."  

The media bought it.  Penn Staters knew better. 

Life at the homes of the victims was typically living with a single mother, with a relative, in foster care, or in a home with an abusive "father."  The common thread was there was not a male role model.  

Jerry Sandusky filled that role.  In fact, he made sure he fulfilled that role.

Had a real investigation taken place, it would have revealed how Jerry Sandusky made sure he was the father figure.

It worked like this.

1.  Jerry Sandusky would identify potential victims during The Second Mile's (TSM) Summer Challenge Camp.  According to FBI expert, Ken Lanning (at 56, 57), pedophiles may eventually develop an expertise at identifying the most vulnerable children.

2.  Sandusky would introduce himself and obtain their names, putting those names on a list.

3.  As the founder and face of TSM, Jerry did whatever he wanted to do at the charity -- which likely included reviewing the participant records to get background information on the boys over the course of the year.

4.  From those lists, he would select his targets for victimization, marking those names with an asterisk and approach them at their second year of attending camp.  He would give them special attention, including private meetings in his office.

5.  After the camp was over, he reached out to them for one-on-one activities - driving to their homes to pick them up and treating them to special experiences, like swims in a hotel pool, shopping trips, and workouts (on and off the PSU campus).  

It was all very fatherly and very innocent -- in the beginning.  

He won the admiration of the boys and the trust their mothers -- who turned their sons over for Jerry's (fatherly) care.  

But according to Louis Freeh it was the lure of the football facilities that provided "very currency that allowed him to attract his victims."  

The media bought it.  Penn Staters knew better.

It was abuse of his role at The Second Mile that provided Sandusky with the "very currency that allowed him to attract his victims."

To state that it was football that attracted children to Sandusky shortchanges and dishonors the victims.  

These children did not trade sex for football tickets or to work out at Penn State.

Penn Staters know it.

The media doesn't care to know it.  

They've picked sensationalism over honoring the victims. 

Tuesday, July 5

"Undaunted" Refutes Narrative, Exposes Media Hypocrisy

Matthew Sandusky's book, Undaunted, refutes media narratives about coaches and PSU officials turning a blind eye to Sandusky's victimization children

Ray Blehar

In the wake of a ruling in the PSU v. PMA case, a May 6, 2016 report by NBC implied that six Penn State football coaches witnessed Jerry Sandusky abusing children.   

The report lacked any corroboration and was quickly dealt a death blow by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General who stated the allegations were unreliable and based on hearsay.

More interesting, however, is that a book written by one of the victims also refutes the NBC report.

Matthew Sandusky, in his book Undaunted explains how his adoptive father, Jerry, was able to utilize deception to convince onlookers that he was engaged in playful/harmless activities with his victims.   

On page 10, Matthew wrote:

“I know from my own experiences with Jerry that Penn State locker rooms had a coded security system where you had to punch in numbers before entering, and there was plenty of warning time to hide what you were doing before anyone came in….He had plenty of time…to assume more innocent postures with his victims when anyone entered the locker room.  At one point, he even asked an adult who entered to count for a pin hold for him on me, and the adult complied, seeing it all as innocent, or at least not suspecting enough to report anything.”

The NBC report also contained a reference to Matthew in which he claimed that investigators informed him that a coach witnessed a sex act between he and his adopted father in the PSU locker room in the early 1990s.    

Considerable evidence in the Sandusky scandal indicates that civil attorneys, and prosecutors  unduly influenced the testimony of witnesses.  

Fina switched the crime scene of the Victim 8 incident when he realized the physical properties of the locker room undermined his witness' testimony

It is certainly not a stretch to believe that OAG investigators may have fabricated the story in an attempt to use Matthew as part of their quest to convict PSU officials in the court of public opinion.

However, Undaunted strikes a serious blow to the false narrative of the football culture being to blame for enabling Jerry's crimes. 

On page 11, it states:

"Nor do I believe that "the culture of football" was to blame.  I believe it was Jerry Sandusky's grooming of...the community into believing he was a saint who was incapable of doing anything harmful to children that caused all of the blindness.  If we lay the responsibility on football and the desire to protect that program, then we take the focus away from the reality that sexual predators do not stand out to the people around them.  Offenders, in fact sometimes seem like godsends, like heroes."

And on page 12:

"I believe that the biggest scandal in college football history had little to do with college football or the people involved in it.  It had to do with Jerry Sandusky and the nature of "nice guy" sexual offenders.   In this, Jerry was a textbook case, but he was a textbook case in a course very few people have taken or understand."

Unlike most of the other individuals who received settlements from PSU, Matthew's opinion about the University's culpability appears to be far more educated and fair.  

On pages 14 and 15, he wrote:

"In theory, the possibility exists that someone in the administration suspected Jerry but was unconvinced that he was molesting boys so he did nothing about it.  But unless that person gets his day in court, I believe it is wise to give him the presumption of innocence.  Everyone knows from the example of the Catholic Church priest-child sex scandal that they did in fact vote to protect the reputation of the church over the safety of the child victims.  There is always a chance of that happening in any organization.  Yet I am not aware of any proof of it in this case."

The Real Conspiracy of Silence

Throughout the Sandusky scandal, former PA OAG officials, Louis Freeh, select members of the PSU Board of Trustees and Administration, and the entirety of the media feigned concern about the welfare of the victims and all for the purpose of convicting  Joe Paterno and PSU officials in the court of public opinion.

When PSU finally defended itself against some of the preposterous allegations made by claimants, various members of the libelous media herd criticized the University as being in denial and that it had't learned anything from the scandal.   

The fact of the matter was that President Barron was right -- and that you had to be living under a rock during the Sandusky trial to not realize the some of the allegations, especially from the 1971 claimant, were false.

And now that a Sandusky victim has come forward challenging the false narrative of PSU officials turning a blind eye to child abuse, where is the national media coverage?

Are they supporting THAT victim's story?  

No.  They're nowhere to be found.

The national media has chosen to ignore Matthew Sandusky's story -- even though he is one of the few individuals who received a settlement and used it to start a foundation to educate the public about child abuse and to assist victims.  

The media is again choosing to preserve the false narrative and sensationalism over writing a story that could actually help prevent child sexual abuse.

Calling the media hypocrites is accurate.  

Calling the media callous is even more appropriate.

A "conspiracy of silence" in the Sandusky scandal remains and it doesn't involve the three PSU officials charged with crimes. 

The real "conspiracy of silence" involves those who continue to wrongly blame Paterno and Penn State at the expense of Pennsylvania's children.

Monday, July 4

Feckless Exhibit 2: Paul Silvis

This is installment two of a multi-part opinion/analysis series that will highlight some interesting information about current and former members of the Penn State University Board of Trustees. Exhibit 2:  Paul Silvis.

by BHF23

You’re a trustee at a major university involved in a tangled web of lawsuits, including one that involves a commercial disparagement claim by the family of its deceased famous football coach. What’s your next move? 

Paul Silvis
Restek company photo 

Well, if you’re Paul Silvis (and thank goodness, you’re not), you double down on the disparagement of Joe Paterno by passing out copies of an anti-Paterno, anti-Penn State football book ("Wounded Lions") to a group of 20 or so other university trustees at a meeting on February 25, 2016.

Attorney Larry Schultz, who was recently named to assist with the review of the Freeh Report, offered this assessment of Silvis' stunt:

He did it to antagonize his fellow board members and for no other reason. It was an ‘in your face’ move. He could have privately sent that book to anyone he wished. As others have noted, this may actually harm the University, since it is a promotion of the very false narrative over which Spanier is suing the University. Silvis not only supports this book but passes it out at a BoT meeting. That was the sort of thing that is really of no value to anyone whatever except as a means of hurting people regarding a very sensitive subject. And what does it get him? A few cheap laughs at the expense of a heartsick widow?” (Schultz on the McAndrew Board, 2/26/16)

I have not read “Wounded Lions: Joe Paterno, Jerry Sandusky, and the Crises in Penn State Athletics; a rogue program, an iconic coach, and an unspeakable tragedy,” by Ron Smith. 

I assume the book is anti-Joe Paterno, anti-Penn State football based on two things: 

1. The words “rogue program” in the book’s title; and 
2. This concise, yet comprehensive book review from Trustee Anthony Lubrano: 

When he offered the book to me I told him he could put it where the sun doesn't shine.” (lubrano on the McAndrew Board, 2/25/16)

I spoke to Ron Smith on the phone at some length in the summer of 2012, not knowing he was working on a book. He told me that while he was aware of some minor issues in the football program (unintentional and inconsequential secondary recruiting violations, for instance), that Penn State ran the cleanest program in the country and that the “Grand Experiment” (the origins of which he credited to former AD Ernie McCoy and former football coach Rip Engle) was real. He said he had never been asked to change an athlete’s grade. 

He also said that “[Paterno] did more for this University than anyone else, with the possible exception of (former PSU president) George Atherton, but I wouldn’t want to live next door to him.”

So…one story in 2012. A different story when the book was published. A more profitable angle maybe? Certainly possible. 

Or did Ira Lubert and Paul Silvis, both mentioned in the book’s acknowledgements, have some influence? Certainly possible.

Silvis has said that his “personal opinion is that the entire community was fooled by Jerry Sandusky. This has been ripping Penn State apart, ripping the alumni apart. I don’t believe any of those men really knew for sure that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile because they would have acted.” (,2/11/13

However, he was on the moving forward train from the get go.  

In the PSU Board teleconference of 8/12/12, his other face stated “We’ve got to move forward as a community, as a university. We can’t continue to rehash and relive the past. It’s not going to change.”

Silvis: Likes"pedophile enabler" label?
Through his corporation, Restek, self-described “Coach” Silvis contributed at least $12,000 to The Second Mile between 2005 and 2010. 

One McAndrew Board poster familiar with Silvis described him as “a complete tool.” 

Another seemed serious when he related “It was great when Silvis had his cigar parties and had his step daughter and her high school friends dress provocatively and act as servers for him.” (Still in State College, The McAndrew Board, 2/25/16) 

Apologies if SiSC was just being sarcastic; I missed it. 

Pretty creepy, if true.  

Scott Paterno and other credible sources say Silvis has been creating and telling lies promoting the company line and disparaging the Paternos (identifying Sue Paterno as the roadblock to the return of the statue, for one) to anyone who will listen. 

And is there any lie bigger than this one -- told by Silvis and other feckless members of the Board of Trustees?

“The recommendations in the back of the Freeh report are really what we paid for and what we wanted."

Read more here:

Paul Silvis: Sowing falsehoods across the countryside. 

Paul Silvis: Penn State’s “Johnny Crappleseed.”

Sunday, July 3

Andreozzi, Kline & Feller Have Nothing on Shubin

Considerable evidence supports that Andrew Shubin is not a credible person, however lawyers Tom Kline, Ben Andreozzi, and Joel Feller also appear to have their own set of ethical shortcomings.   Unfortunately, the media often seeks out these lawyers (ambulance chasers) to find out the "truth" about PSU's Sandusky settlements.

Ray Blehar

With the news continuing to report on PSU's Sandusky settlements, rest assured the usual group of settlement attorneys, Tom Kline, Ben Andreoezzi, and Joel Feller will be featured to discuss the validity of the settlement process.  

Unfortunately, the track records of these individuals during the Sandusky case and settlement process show them to be less than forthright.

Tom Kline
One of the worst offenders, who seems to be quoted the most often by the media, is attorney Tom Kline.  He represented Victim 5 (V5), who happened to be the only victim to make an allegation (i.e., indecent assault) that resulted in a not guilty verdict.  

After the first round of settlements, Kline's client reportedly received one of the highest payments because of the date of his abuse was (allegedly) after February 2001 and purportedly could have been prevented.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, Kline said this about the settlement process:

“I’ve been intimately involved in the litigation process, and there are multiple tiers and levels of process involved in evaluating these claims.  I can tell you the claims were paid after rigorous vetting and substantiation of a claim.”

The statement couldn't be farther from the truth.

First, the settlement documents state that the claims are not considered valid or invalid.

Figure 1: Excerpt from John Doe A  Settlement Document

Next, attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who served as Penn State's settlement negotiator, more or less called the process a bargaining session.

"This is a market-driven process.  Plaintiffs will demand one thing. Defendants are willing to give another. My job is to present them with facts that can justify them meeting in the middle."

Sources with knowledge of the process stated that one of the primary objectives of the process was to get claimants to accept a payment below the insurance limits.   

As noted earlier, PSU did not consider the claims valid or invalid, but in this instance chose to make a higher payment based on the date, despite the following facts (one which bears repeating):

- V5 was unsure of the date of the incident and gave 1998, November 2000, and August 2001 as possible dates;  

- An August date would have placed he and Sandusky in the Lasch Building during pre-season football camp when the likelihood of being unseen by someone would have been very low.

- Judge Cleland stated that child victims whose abuse happened many years ago could not be held to recall the correct date, and;

V5 was the only victim to make an allegation that was flatly rejected, apparently with little discussion, by the jury.  Note that the jury found Sandusky guilty of all the crimes related to an incident that had neither an identified victim nor an eyewitness -- and was based on hearsay!

PSU's likely ulterior motive in the settlement process was to use the court of public opinion to convict Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz of endangering children.  It is little wonder that Lubert and Feinberg so easily went along with the 2001 date.

Of course, this was great news to Kline -- but it wasn't the first time that his client's false testimony was allowed to slide.

V5's Sentencing Statement
While the jury didn't buy V5's testimony of the 2001 indecent assault in the Lasch Building, Tom Kline, Judge Cleland, and the media seemingly forgot about that when he took the stand at Sandusky's sentencing hearing.

Apparently, Kline did not inform his client that his victim impact statement should be confined to crimes in which the defendant was convicted -- not those in which he was found not guilty.   

Victim 5's impact statement clearly referred the indecent assault which was not believed by the jury.   

"Jerry Sandusky lured me into a Penn State sauna and then a shower and then forcibly had me touch him. I am troubled with flashbacks of his naked body. I continue to be haunted by the incident. (I have) anxiety, PTSD, nightmares, and embarrassment and guilt.“

"I will never erase from my mind the filthy images of his naked body, him forcing himself against me and my hands against him.  He took away my childhood the day he assaulted me. He should be sentenced accordingly." 

Given that the jury found he was not assaulted, it seemingly follows that if this had been a civil trial, rather than PSU's sham settlement process, Victim 5 (and Kline) wouldn't have fared so well.  

While the burden of proof in a civil trial is much lower, any competent lawyer would have shown that there was too much uncertainty about the date of the incident to award the payout based on PSU's ability to prevent the incident.

Kline:  Laughing all the way to the bank

Kline, who recently donated $50 million to Drexel University and will have the law school named after him, was laughing all the way to the bank at how easy the money came from PSU.

And the man behind making it easy -- Ira Lubert.

Lubert: Unusual interest in Victim 5's settlement?
Interestingly enough, the final multi-millon dollar figure was decided at a meeting between Kline, Feinberg, and PSU Board of Trustees member,Ira Lubert.  

Kline's client, Victim 5, was the highest paid of the claimants until Victim 9 extracted even more money by using discovery the Freeh Report Source materials as leverage.

Speaking of money, that appeared to be Ben Andreozzi's focus since day one.  

Ben Andreozzi
On or around the time of the Sandusky trial and settlements, attorney Ben Andreozzi's law firm's name was prominently featured on the web-site of the Pennsylvania Office of Victim Advocate.  

Wasn't that convenient?

Andreozzi was one of the first out of the gate to file a lawsuit, however, it was against TSM in order to preserve assets in the case of future civil lawsuits.   Interestingly enough, Andreozzi's lawsuit faulted the charity for lack of oversight.  

Court documents asserted that TSM was reckless in its hiring, supervision and retention of Sandusky, and negligent when it did not contact law enforcement or child protective services when it learned of sexual abuse accusations.  The papers also maintained that the charity failed to properly supervise Sandusky’s one-on-one or overnight activities with the boys he came in contact with through TSM.

Seemingly, all that was forgotten and never spoken of again once Lubert, Feinberg, and friends doled out the settlement money.  

Andreozzi: Shifted Blame to PSU
After the settlements, Andreozzi shifted the blame to PSU, stating that PSU had been  "moving in the right direction" and that it "serves as a model for how institutions can assume some accountability after they make mistakes.”

Andreozzi's inconsistency goes right along with his (lack of) credibility -- and as the evidence reveals, he has some things in common with Andrew Shubin.

Shubin's client, A.M., in his fifth and last interview with investigators,  changed his story from being victimized during a trip with Sandusky (to Erie, PA) to his victimization occurring only in the PSU football facilities.  It was the fifth different version Shubin's client gave in five attempts.  As such,  A.M., much like his attorney, Andrew Shubin, was determined not credible by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

Victim 4 (V4), who retained Andreozzi before speaking with the police also alleged that all of the victimization occurred only in the PSU football facilities or at football related events -- not in the Sandusky home or elsewhere.     

It is almost certain that V4 was abused in the Sandusky home, just as Victims 3, 7, 9, 10, and others not presented at trial were.   However, it appears that in order to obtain the largest settlement possible, Andreozzi kept his client focused on just those crimes allegedly occurring at PSU (because it had the deepest pockets).

Joel Feller
Joel Feller is part of the Ross Feller Casey law firm that represented seven Sandusky claimants, including Victims 3, 7, and 10, as well as the person purporting to be Victim 2. 

Feller's apparent ethical lapse involves his representation of Victim 10 (V10), whose statements to PSU for the settlements in no way matched his testimony -- or the prosecution's version of his victimization -- at the trial.  Here's prosecutor Joseph McGettigan's description of V10's relationship with and victimization by Sandusky.

“…he was a less lengthy congallant (sic)…of the defendant’s but it lasted long enough for the defendant to take him downstairs, in a place he would be with children, and both perform and have oral sex with him.”

In short, McGettigan was describing a single incident that led to Sandusky being convicted on two counts of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (IDSI).   V10's only other mention of indecent contact with Sandusky allegedly occurred one year earlier when he was groped in a swimming pool during The Second Mile's Summer Challenge camp. 

However, the Ross Feller Casey web-site included this posting shortly after the settlement:

In a segment that aired at 11 p.m. Aug. 20, Victim 10 spoke candidly to Action News' Wendy Saltzman about how Sandusky groomed him, how he lavished him with gifts and affection and became a father figure only to molest him dozens of times over three years and then threaten him.

"It occurred on the Penn State campus, it occurred in Jerry's home, in public -- anywhere that he felt he was safe to do that was where he took advantage of me." 

Said (Joel)  Feller: "These young men are living not only with the fact that they were abused horrifically over a significant period of time.”

It strains credulity that Joel Feller and the rest of the attorneys (including Andrew Shubin) involved in V10's case did not know he had dramatically changed his story from the trial to the settlement discussions.   

Feller:  Coached Victim 10 to tell more credible story?

While it is not unusual for victims to disclose more details about their victimization, V10's testimony at trial reflected the public's stereotype of child molesters, otherwise known as "stranger danger" incidents.   

According to the jury foreman, V10s case involved the most deliberations because his testimony did not reflect Sandusky's modus operandi as an acquaintance offender.

It is almost certain that V10 was coached by his legal team to provide a more credible version of events at settlement.

When the next round of settlement news breaks, most assuredly one of these bloodsuckers will show up to comment on the veracity of the process -- even though evidence shows that facts were of little concern to anyone involved in the settlement process.