Friday, October 7


Barry Bozeman

We all recall this Sara Ganim story about Linda Kelly's lies and exaggerations:
Penn State officials conspired to protect themselves and Jerry Sandusky, AG says

When this feckless Corbett ally put Tim Curley and Gary Schultz on stage as equal "partners" with Jerry Sandusky the plan should have been clear at PSU.  The university was under attack and required a competent counsel and Board of Trustees.

PSU had neither.

Cynthia Clueless Baldwin allowed Corbett and his hand picked tool John Surma to ambush Joe Paterno and Dr. Graham Spanier at an "emergency" meeting they set up with the sole purpose of eliminating any effective PSU response to this absurd association and malicious attack on Penn State's integrity.

Now a new Penn Live article comes with this news:
Judge to review seals blocking PSU officials' Sandusky case filings from public 

Small wonder a public display of the weakness of their case does not interest the prosecution. 
A three-judge panel ruled that prosecutors building the case against the officials abused the state grand jury process by taking damning testimony about the administrators' response to the unfolding Sandusky child sex abuse probe from former university counsel Cynthia Baldwin. 
The men, the court held, believed Baldwin was representing them personally and, as such, Baldwin should not have been permitted to testify about her conversations with them.
As a result, the court ruled, Baldwin's testimony must be barred from any further proceedings and most of the perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy counts that were built on it must be tossed.
With all those perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy counts out the prosecution is left with Child Endangerment due to a Failure to Report charges that depend on what Mike McQueary actually told Tim Curley and Gary Schultz in a 10 minute meeting some 15 years ago.

The strange thing about this? Mike McQueary heard some slapping sounds in the staff locker room one February night. And then depending on which version of events now on the record from McQueary and family friend Dr. Dranov you believe, either saw "nothing but heard sounds", or saw "something sexual", "something extremely sexual", or a "sexual assault" by Sandusky on a boy of about 10.

Or was it this from the Presentment:?
(McQueary) saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught."

NO IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT THAT - EVEN McQUEARY DENIES THAT FRAUD.  And the jury in the Sandusky trial? - They found Sandusky "not guilty" on that specific charge. So what's the deal prosecutors? You know that never occurred from the witness and the Sandusky jury - yet you continue to negatively affect the lives of 3 good men and the reputation of a great University. What is the point of this continuing travesty of justice? 

Prosecutors know every contradictory word Mike McQueary has said on the record. They know the testimony provided below by doctor and close family friend Dr. Dranov. Yet they are so consumed with a prosecutorial zeal they keep three able administrators lives on hold over what this guy said and what Tim Curley and Gary Schultz believe they heard in a 10 minute meeting 15 years in the past? How twisted is that? Any prosecutor or DA worth their salt should recognize what a terrible witness Mike McQueary will make - they know it from all the changes in his story. And Mike McQueary is all they've got. And they think they know what Tim Curley and Gary Schultz should have heard? Might have heard? NO. 

Far worse than that, they think they know what Tim and Gary said to Graham Spanier? 

Forget the "mandated reporter" problem. These men have never been mandated reporters except by your convoluted stretch of pretzel logic. They never came into contact with children in any part of the responsibilities of their work as Athletic Director, Vice-President for Facilities, or President of Penn State. 

When the employee of a famous state charity - The Second Mile - honored by PSU alum and PA Senator Rick Santorum as an "Angel in Adoption" was found to have worked out and showered with a boy they would have to know: 1) That Sandusky had several children of his own, 2)  He worked with children as part of his charity and 3) He often had brought boys to PSU in that capacity. The fact that Mike McQueary heard some slapping sounds and feared something sexual might have happened that he did not see was cause for one reasonable course of action. They presented the situation to Sandusky's Charity director Dr. Raykovitz - a licensed child psychologist who was a mandated reporter in the best position possible to determine if Sandusky was a danger to the kids it was the director's responsibility to protect. 

In the absence of anything more direct or damning than a shower and slapping sounds and a boy who did not appear to be in distress, the person most qualified to get to the bottom of any potential problem had to be the licensed child psychologist who ran The Second Mile. 

Whether any of the PSU administrators knew of a 1998 shower that was reported by a mother, is unclear. But if they were aware they would have known that Sandusky was actually cleared in that investigation by the investigating agency DPW.

a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, as part of DPW’s investigation. Counselor John Seasock,opined that "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children." Seasock’s report ruled out that the boy "had been placed in a situation where he was being ‘groomed for future sexual victimization.*

Those who say any man and boy in a shower is somehow a clear indication of something evil have no idea of the reality that existed in the era prior to the publicity on pedophilia during the Priest Pedophile pandemic. Athletic teams of boys at YMCAs, Boys Clubs and other Recreation League facilities all across the USA had group shower rooms frequented by boys and men. 
But since Mike was upset after imagining that two adults were involved in that shower from what he perceived as "sexual slapping sounds" and then seeing the boy with the ex-coach. Did he jump to an errant conclusion? Does one actually make a police report when Mike indicates the boy was not in distress and Sandusky says any sounds had to be hand slaps on walls or feet on the floor? 

In this case, they decided to have a word with the qualified child psychologist who was responsible for The Second Mile kids where Sandusky was employed as the founder of the charity. When a Santorum recognized Angel in Adoption known as a friend to disadvantage children due to founding a famous state charity says it was horseplay and the 'accuser' has not seen but heard something? When you know a similar previous investigated incident ended with Sandusky being cleared? 

I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person would take a different course of action from 1) Inform the qualified responsible TSM Director and 2) Make certain it will not happen again at Penn State. The real questions are: What steps did Jack Raykovitz take? Did he ask TSM volunteers and employees to provide a list of boys Sandusky favored? Did he ask his employee who the boy was he took to PSU that night? Did he interview that boy as a psychologist? Didn't this incident raise any curiosity or red flags with the qualified director of The Second Mile? 

McQueary first called his father and then went to his father's home where long time family friend Dr. Dranov asked McQueary "What did you see"  Provided below is the testimony of Dr. Dranov.

Before you get to that consider this: The entire defamation of PSU depends on two overt illegal and unethical acts by high office holders in the State of PA and the complicity of a feckless Board of Trustees misled into a snap decision by a conflicted John Surma and Gov. Tom Corbett.

Cynthia Baldwin was supposed to the chief counsel for Penn State. Either she was totally incompetent or completely complicit in Tom Corbett's infamy. Finally, she was exposed and removed as a witness in these cases. But her crime was not only a failure to tell Spanier, Curley, and Schultz that she was not their representative while speaking to them in confidence. Her crime was a failure to protect Penn State from a malicious unconscionable attack that should have never had a chance of success. Any competent counsel would have told the BOT in no uncertain terms that taking the action of firing Joe Paterno and forcing the resignation of Graham Spanier would prejudice the university as if the Board of Trustees had already decided the guilt of these able administrators who had done nothing wrong.

For Curley and Schultz to be wrong or guilty solely depends on what they were told by Mike McQeary. For Graham Spanier to be complicit in some conspiracy or cover up depends solely on what he was led to believe by Curley and Schultz.  This is very easy to comprehend.

I will once again provide the entire Dr. Dranov Testimony and ask every reader this:
How could Mike McQueary fail to tell a family friend and Doctor - Dr. Dranov, in the comfort of his family home something he says he made clear to strangers Tim Curley and Gary Schultz in a 10 minute meeting a week later?

This is only one of several accounts of Mike McQueary's statements and testimony of what happened in that locker room - add to that the various accounts of what he says he said to Joe, Tim, and Gary and you have a witness that any incompetent cross-examination would expose as hopelessly flawed.

Why does the State of PA continue to dance this sham of a prosecution around the block 5 years later?  That's a mystery I will gladly address next week.



  1. Hopefully, Penn State will expose Mike McQueary as an unreliable witness in their trial later this month.

    1. That would be good Tim. I am surprised this charade has managed to have this lifespan - given what we know about all the McQueary statements and the Baldwin duplicity and incompetence the survival of this case has been a mystery to me.

    2. Barry - It seems like a game of hot potato where the Attorney General stuck with the case just hopes to keep it alive to avoid a court loss until they can pass it off to their successor.

      So far, it's Kelly, Kane, Castor and Beemer who have had the hot potato. In January it's either Shapiro or Rafferty who will be stuck with it.

  2. So Joe was suppose to figure all this out, after the fact, in a 10 minute conversation with Mike who was more collected the next day. I am so thankful the question was asked: Are you a mandatory reporter?

  3. If anyone should have been charged for failure to report, it would have been Dr. Dranov, because he knew he was a mandatory reporter and spoke to McQueary within an hour after he left Sandusky alone with a boy in the shower.

    I suspect that Dr. Dranov wasn't charged either as a favor to Mike McQueary or as part of an immunity deal for Mike's testimony.