Tuesday, September 20

Going off the grid

I will be fishing in Montana starting tomorrow and will return next Wednesday.

Sorry to leave in the middle of such an interesting debate.  Before leaving I want to make a few points clear.

1. My goals in this is to find the truth & make sure PA's kids get the protection they deserve.

2. I do not lay awake at night worrying about statues or whether or not PSU is going to win football games.

3. What keeps me awake at night and in this fight is that today:

a. Perhaps hundreds of PA caseworkers decided that an allegation against a previously cleared parent or perpetrator was not worthy of additional investigation.

b. Perhaps another hundred caseworkers investigated an abuse allegation and determined that the injuries, lack of nourishment, or other indications of abuse and/or victimization were not severe enough to warrant adding another case to their caseloads.

c. The media and the Pennsylvania state government continued to keep the truth hidden about who enabled Sandusky's serial victimization of children and that necessary reforms have been lost in the false narrative that the child abuse reporting system failed in 2001.

Please keep up the good fight.




  1. Ray,
    Do you come west to fish often? I live in Green River, Wy. If you could give me advanced notice, I would be honored to meet you and buy you diner. Totally serious. Scott

    1. Scott,
      I will probably take a cross country trip in the near future and I'll be sure to let you know when that happens.

      I've fished the North Platte around Alcova, WY in the past.


  2. Damn! I wanted to spend the week harping about your adulation of that miscreant Matt Sandusky. His acceptance of PSU money was despicable, fraudulent, and unethical. You say his wife talked him into it. Of course..cherchez la femme! And the serpent (Andrew Shubin) tricked her into it. Now tell me...who really wrote that book?

    1. Gregory,
      Your or my opinion of Matt Sandusky is not the issue.

      The issue is that the MEDIA has believed and relied on the words of EVERY victim -- charlatan or real.

      As you know, Matt appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show and the media hung on his every word. But now that Matt has essentially refuted the media narrative of a PSU cover-up, they are paying no attention to his account (nor the accounts of Victims 1 and 4).

      You already know my opinion of Shubin, however, Matt decided to come forward BEFORE he talked to Shubin.

      I read the book and fact checked it. Much of it is confirmed by information on the public record, however, there were two things I found that were not.

      Let me assure you the book was not written by a legal expert nor by someone with only a periphery knowledge of the case.

  3. You deserve the rest Ray, and I hope you catch a lot of big fish!

    Hey, since you have talked quite a bit about Jim Clemente here on your blog, what's your take on his participation in a trial-by-media show that basically slandered Burke Ramsey with no legal process? To me, it's very disheartening to see Jim Clemente do something like this. It seems to be an attempt to use his "expertise" in an unethical manner for cash. Isn't this what happened with Joe Paterno and Louis Freeh? Go on television as a retired FBI "expert" and slander someone for a huge payout. What gives? Are these retired FBI guys, Frank Noonan included, this greedy and unethical that they'll say and do anything on television for a buck?

    1. I didn't watch the Jon Benet Ramsey show. Did you? What did Jim Clemente actually say. He is free to express his opinion about the case if he clearly indicates that it is just his opinion.

      The reality is that Burke Ramsey has long been a suspect in the public mind. He or his parents filed numerous lawsuits alleging defamation against him. I can't find any indication any of the lawsuits went to trial so they may have all been settled.

      The Boulder Police badly screwed up the crime scene evidence and the investigation so the truth will probably never be known short of a confession.

      What is strange about the lawyer's comments is that he claims that CBS based their show on a 2012 book. So why didn't Ramsey sue the book author in 2012?

    2. Tim, thanks for responding, I know Ray is busy unwinding. No, I didn't see the two-part show, but I've been reading a lot about it. There's not much in the way of disapproval from the public. It appears most people are just eating it up as entertainment and not questioning the fact that Burke is not an historical figure where speculation cannot be seen as defamation. Burke is alive and well and has been cleared, I assume, and allowed to live his life from age nine into adulthood on the outside of prison walls.

      A few people, like myself, are seeing the trial by media aspect. Which basically leads to a sentence of a lifetime of judgment, ridicule, harassment and outright rejection from society. All based on an "expert's" opinion on TV? Sound familiar? Richard Jewell, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Curley, Shultz, now Burke Ramsey.

      Most people are just falling into the witch hunt mentality leaving comments after the articles I've read like, "yeah I knew that Burke did it, look at those shifty eyes and his awkward smile". For me, it's all just too similar to what retired FBI Freeh and Frank Noonan did to Paterno and his family on national and international television. No regard for the judicial process---innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I suppose when it comes to hiding the pathologies of the wealthy (pedophilia, child pornography) there are no moral boundaries.

      Look at Burke's dad---a multi million dollar corporate figure---Access Graphics, Lockheed Martin---sort of another John Surma or Ken Frazier. Seems Burke may be an attempted sacrifice to protect powerful Dad's secret societal ties to Satanism, child porn, incest and pedophilia. And retired FBI seem to be the go-to men for that continuing cover-up. It's very sad that we just can't seem to bring these wealthy evil people and their protectors to justice.

    3. In a way, Burke was the victim of an incompetent police investigation. As many mistakes as the Boulder police, made, no one really believes it when they say they cleared Burke.

      Burke's father was implicated by the show too. The charges in the show that Burke did it and his parents covered it up to protect him are not new. They have been made numerous times before.

      Richard Jewell is the exception in your list because he was proven innocent when the real bomber confessed. No one has confessed to the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey.

      One thing that was a surprise was that Burke Ramsey recently went on the Dr. Phil show. That might make him a public figure and make it much harder for him to win a defamation lawsuit.

      I would be surprised if Burke wants to risk going to court because it he loses, it's like being convicted in the public mind. I just wonder how many millions Burke has gotten over the years in settlements.

    4. Truth and Tim,
      I haven't followed the Ramsay case and recent going on.

      All I have to say is that "media mob justice" is the new normal in the USA.

      While I don't know what Jim Clemente said, I do know that I was able to change some of his opinions on the veracity of the testimony of some of the Sandusky trial victims and that some of the scenarios didn't fit Jerry's modus operandi.

      I covered this a bit in Report #3 and Clemente agreed that the prosecutors questioning led the witnesses to portray more of a forced encounter than Sandusky's M.O. of grooming victims to be compliant.

      According to Lanning, it is easier to get convictions using that approach because juries can be confused by the idea of compliant victims and CONSENTING victims (even though someone under 18 can't consent).

      So, while Jim and I weren't questioning the victimization of those who were presented as witnesses, some of their testimony connoted that Jerry overpowered them/forced himself on them. This scenario also gives the witnesses "a man's way out" (so to speak).

      If you go back and read the transcripts, I believe that McGettigan only mentioned grooming once -- in his opening statement.