Wednesday, November 9

Election 2016: No Surprise! Media Wrong Again

After five years of examining the media's habit of promoting false narratives and ignoring the facts, it should not have come as a surprise to Penn Staters that the media was all wrong about the 2016 election. 


Ray Blehar

While most of America woke up in shock this morning, on election day I was quite confident that the media had blown it and that the polls and predictions couldn't be more wrong.  

It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but in the last five years the evidence reported on this blog has shown the media blew major stories on the Duke lacrosse scandal, the Hillsborough soccer disaster, Richard Jewell, the UVa rape case, and the Exxon Valdez.

The common thread among these stories was that the media fell in love with a narrative and ignored the evidence against it.

There is little question the media favored Hillary Clinton and wanted her to become the first female President.  After they made the seemingly easily defeatable (in their opinion) Donald Trump her opponent, they went on to bias the reporting against him.  Meanwhile, the media did its best to not report Clinton's problems or to downplay them as much as possible.

In the Sandusky scandal, this type of reporting was evident over the last five years.  The improbable story offered by the Office of Attorney General in its Sandusky grand jury presentment and the scant evidence offered in the Freeh Report were readily accepted as facts condemning PSU's (and Paterno's) culpability.  

When evidence came out contrary to the narrative of a Penn State/Paterno cover up and showing that the evidence in the Freeh Report was biased and wrong, it was either not reported or discounted completely by the media.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

2016 Election Analysis

While the media is still trying to put its finger on where it went wrong, the answer is obvious to those who understand the influence of cognitive biasing in making projections.  In short, cognitive biasing ignores information and evidence that would cause an adjustment or change to a projection.

The final IBT-TIPP poll, which as correctly predicted the last four elections (including 2016) had Trump winning.  The media paid little notice to this poll, instead relying on other polls and the poll average.  

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders battled for the nomination with Sanders winning numerous states the "rust belt" states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  See the map below with Sanders in green and Clinton in gold.

Next, while Sanders didn't win Pennsylvania and Ohio, he competed well in both states, winning around 43% of the popular vote in both states.  

To the shock of the media, who had Clinton winning the "rust belt," Trump was doubling down in the seemingly solid Clinton "rust belt" states.  

What was going on?

The Trump campaign rightfully dismissed the biased media reports and instead looked at the evidence.  It understood that some Democrats and Independents who supported Sanders could be swung to support him.   

Emails released at the time of the Democratic National Convention revealed that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was tipping the scales in favor of Clinton.   Emails released just before the election revealed that DNC Chair Donna Brazile was leaking questions to Clinton for her debates against Sanders.  Sanders' supporters were ripe for the picking.

It also understood, thanks to Liberal film maker Michael Moore's Trumpland, that the "rust belt" was indeed vulnerable due to the economics of the region.

Finally -- and this point will strike home with Penn Staters who have been called pedophile and child rape enablers -- many Trump voters knew they would be demeaned as bigots, homophobes, xenophobes, and other derogatory terms if they admitted who they were going to support.  As a result, they lied to the pollsters about for whom they would and/or did cast a vote.  

Not only were most of media's pre-election polls wrong, but so are its exit polls.

In summary, Bernie Sanders supporters could not be counted on to support Hillary Clinton and many of them lived in the "rust belt." The Trump campaign made an evidence based decision to go after those votes.  Meanwhile, there was a percentage of voters who were silently Trump backers.  In combination, the those factors threw off the polls -- "Big League."

Coming Together In A Time of Crisis

Over the last five years, there is little doubt that the Sandusky scandal - a crisis - became a unifying force among tens of thousands of Penn Staters and even those who were not affiliated with the University, but who valued the truth.

We all knew the media narrative was wrong.  

It didn't matter if we were white, black, red, male, female, Republican, Democrat, gay, transgender, or straight.   

Barry Bozeman, the founder of this blog, is a hard core Liberal Democrat.  

I am a registered Republican.

The truth, or finding it was all that mattered. Our political differences were put aside to work for a greater cause.

As you are probably aware, Anthony Lubrano, another truth seeker was a registered Republican who campaigned for Democrat Kathleen Kane because she promised to investigate the Sandusky matter.

For about half of those who read this blog, this morning's result was likely saddening and considered disastrous.  

Now you know how the other half of us felt in 2008 and 2012.

We lived.  We didn't hold mass protests.  We stuck it out.

So, stay here and stay in the fight for the truth -- the force that unifies us all.

Finding the truth was Joe Paterno's death bed wish.

While the nation is undoubtedly divided over the election, there is a glimmer of hope for Republicans and Democrats to come together and make that wish come true.

In October 2014, unabashed Liberal MSNBC Commentator Chris Matthews made this statement about Joe Paterno.

“I’m going to editorialize. I think JoePa’s coming back at some point. I don’t know how long it’s going to take — you don’t have to say it, I’m saying it, I’m not running for anything.  I don’t know what kind of words were passed about Sandusky’s conduct, but horsing around doesn’t tell me anything. I want to know the words — I’m tired of words that don’t tell you anything. It was a terrible thing that happened to those kids, terrible beyond belief. People should’ve used English graphic language to describe to other people. There shouldn’t have been any confusion, and I think there was.”
You can check out the video of the exchange here  (credit: OnwardState).

On the Conservative side, here is President-elect Donald Trump on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, talking about bringing back the Paterno statue and referring to the fiasco by saying "how about that whole deal."

As we should have learned over the last five years, the reason that few politicians have come to our aid is that the Sandusky scandal and the topic of child sexual abuse is too toxic and has a way of bringing an end to the careers of those who have gone near it.

This scandal and finding the truth will not and cannot be handled by anyone in Pennsylvania.  The help we need must come from Washington DC. 

Regardless of how you feel about last nights election, having the most powerful man in the world in your corner is a very good thing.  

A thing that could bring people together.


Monday, November 7

5 Years On - Can We Influence the Media to Finally Get This Right?

SORRY - I FORGOT THIS WAS SCHEDULED - IT WAS AN IDEA FROM A FEW WEEKS AGO PRIOR TO THE McQueary Verdict   - this was an idea in progress that was not positively affected by the McQueary trial and verdict as I had hoped.  

Something else needs to be done to mark the 5 year anniversary - so my apologies to everyone -  


Five years of SMSS posting on this travesty - Time to Call for Action 

Media Naivety, Complicity, and Stupidity.  

Please revisit this post: ANATOMY OF A MEDIA FRENZY  from Jan. 7, 2011

Saving those links to all those media accounts - that frenzy of condemnation by an almost unanimous media that rushed to condemn Joe Paterno and PSU for enabling the continued crimes of Jerry Sandusky based on the Victim 2 portion of Attorney General Linda Kelly's Presentment could now come in handy. 

Those are the people complicit in the crime of defamation who should forever be tarnished with their feckless irresponsible journalism. Did they not know what a Presentment is? 

A Presentment is supposed to be an accurate synopsis of Grand Jury testimony given under oath but without the benefit of cross-examination, without the introduction of exculpatory evidence, without providing full quotes in context by the witness, and without the presence of counsel outside the Office of the Attorney General. 

The Presentment is typically the case against the defendant stated in the most damning terms alleging the "facts" in the case as seen by the prosecution alone. 

Yet the media treated this Presentment as unassailable FACT and used it to condemn Joe Paterno as the man who heard about a 10-year-old boy being raped by a Penn State Coach from Mike McQueary and chose only to report this to Athletic Director Tim Curley. 


The Victim 2 Presentment by AG Linda Kelly was a BALD FACED LIE. In short this:
(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. ....(McQueary) reported what he had seen to Joe Paterno.
was a complete misrepresentation of the testimony before the Grand Jury.
We know this for certain because McQueary says it was: 

McQueary wrote the OAG telling them he was never certain of  "intercourse" He never saw "penetration" and he certainly never told Joe Paterno that. 


We also know that the jury in the Jerry Sandusky Trial returned very few "NOT GUILTY" verdicts on Sandusky. One of those few NOT GUILTY verdicts was Victim 2  Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse. 

So the person who's testimony is the basis for the Presentment by Linda Kelly told her office that the presentment was wrong - a lie - and the jury that heard testimony on that charge ruled NOT GUILTY.


Many in the Media said - 85-year-old Joe Paterno admitted his culpability when he said: "I wish I had done more". That is also a misrepresentation. Joe Paterno said, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."  

Well don't we all? All of us have said at one time we wish we could have foreseen a future where an event in our past came close to offering a chance to do something that may have avoided a consequence we could not see at the time.  

Of course, anyone who has followed the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal on this website knows far more about this fake media produced disaster known as "The Penn State Child Abuse Scandal". But for the moment could we focus on this simple set of FACTS. 


Thursday, November 3

Evidence Supports OAG Decision on Identity of Victim 2

Analysis of available evidence proves that A.M.'s statements were full of inconsistencies and that the OAG was on solid ground to state he was not Victim 2.

By Ray Blehar

A.M. will testify at Jerry's Sandusky's Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing this Friday.  Undoubtedly, he will state he was Victim 2 (V2) -- the child in the shower on February 9, 2001.  

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not A.M. was the shower victim from 2001, however, that's not what tomorrow's hearing is about.

Lindsay Claims OAG Knew AM was V2

Arthur Lindsay, counsel for Jerry Sandusky, submitted an amended PCRA on May 4, 2016.   Issue #1 stated that OAG prosecutor Joseph McGettigan’s  reference to “others presently known to God, but not to us” was in reference to V2 and that McGettigan lying because he knew that V2 was A.M.   

Proving what is in someone else's mind is a tall mountain to climb.  

It is even harder to prove when the witness who is supposed to support the claim has provided false and contradictory evidence to investigators.  

Evidence Against Issue #1

1.  McGettigan's statement “presently known to God but not to us” may have been nothing more than a reference to commonly known facts about lack of disclosures by individuals who were victimized. The evidence and research on child sexual victimization that show many victims never come forward to publicly disclose their abuse, especially those who formed a bond with their offender.[1]   

2.  Research also shows that child molesters who abuse children of the same sex offend more frequently and with more children than offenders who molest children of the opposite sex.   A study by Abel[2] of 377 non-incarcerated, non–incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that pedophiles abusing victims of the opposite sex on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas pedophiles who molest children of the same sex had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts.   According to the trial verdicts, Sandusky falls into the latter category of a same sex molester and McGettigan was on firm ground to state Sandusky had many more victims (i.e. "known only to God") than those that came forward and disclosed during the investigation

3.   Ironically, Sandusky’s PCRA contained considerable evidence revealing that A.M. provided contrived, contradictory, and false statements throughout his interviews with investigators.  

4. While it is expected that victims will first deny abuse when confronted and then may incrementally disclose abuse, the inconsistencies about victimization would be expected.  To be clear, these inconsistencies would be expected and not be considered grounds to doubt A.M.'s credibility.  For informational purposes, a brief summary of A.M.'s statements regarding his victimization follows:

a. September 20, 2011 - no victimization.
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, Pages 436, 437)

b. November 9, 2011 (Everhart interview) - no victimization.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, Pages 443-445)

c. February 28, 2012 - stated 
he was untruthful in his first interview with police, but didn't provide details. 
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2,  pages 438-440)

d.  March 8, 2012 - disclosed he was 
abused on three trips (outside Pennsylvania) he took with Sandusky.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, pages 441, 442) 

e.  March 16, 2012 - disclosed he was abused on during a trip in the 
car to Erie, Pennsylvania and on 10 occasions in the PSU locker room, but did not provide specifics.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, pages 443-449) 

f.   April 3, 2012 - scheduled interview with A.M. did not occur.  Attorney 
Andrew Shubin attempted to provide a written statement alleging specific acts.  Investigators rejected Shubin's statement and ceased contact with A.M. and Shubin.
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, page 449)

Analysis: While A.M. may indeed be one of Sandusky's victims, Shubin's influence on his versions of events diminished his credibility in the eyes of the investigators.

5. In his March 16, 2012 interview with Postal Inspection Service Agent M.J. Corricelli, A.M. stated that Sandusky called him in 2009 to inform him that an individual from Lock Haven had accused him of "some stuff" he didn't do.  In addition, A.M. stated that Sandusky contacted him in March 2011 and asked him to write a letter of support for him.  A.M. did not write the letter, however, Sandusky sent him one which he read over and signed.  A.M. sent the letter (that he didn't write) to the Centre Daily Times under his signature.

6.  Additionally, In his March 16, 2012 interview with Postal Inspection Service Agent M.J. Coricelli, A.M. provided telephone voicemail records that indicated 
Sandusky began calling him on August 31, 2011 – just one day after the Harrisburg Patriot News released a story[3] titled, “Investigation of Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State football staffer, is nearing its end, sources say.”   Sandusky left two voice mails on September 7, 2011 – the same day the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) first contacted A.M. in an attempt to interview him.  On September 12, A.M. received another  voicemail[4] from Sandusky advising him to go forward.

7.  A.M. was interviewed by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) on September 20, 2010.  In that interview he stated that he joined The Second Mile (TSM) in the 3rd or 4th grade (in 1997 or 1998) and participated in its programs for about five years.   He acknowledged working out and showering with Sandusky but claimed that nothing inappropriate occurred.

Sandusky contacted A.M on September 21 and 22, 2011 – the two days following A.M.’s initial interview with the PSP. A.M. also played a round of golf with Sandusky, TSM's Bruce Heim, and PSU Trustee Ryan McCombie later that month.

9.  A.M.'s voicemail records revealed that Sandusky contacted him at least seven times from the initial contact in August up until November 3rd -- the day before the charges were filed.  

10.  Approximately one week after Sandusky's final voicemail, investigator Curtis Everhart interviewed A.M. in the law office of Sandusky’s attorney, Joseph Amendola.  

11.  A.M. stated that he and his mother learned that attorney Joseph Amendola wanted to speak with them, which led to the November 9, 2011 interview at Amendola's law office.

12. Early in the interview with Everhart, A.M. stated that he and his mother met with his high school guidance counselor, who recommended he attend The Second Mile.  West Branch High School included grades 
7 - 12.

13.    Later in that same interview, A.M. provided a contradictory and false statement alleging that he quit The Second Mile during the sixth grade.

14.  A copy of the charity’s 2001 Annual Report for the year ending August 31, 2001, contains a photograph of AM with the following caption that proved he was involved in the charity while in the ninth grade

"<A.M.>, a ninth grader from Clearfield County, was asked to simply say a few words about his thoughts and feelings regarding The Second Mile to an audience of approximately 350 donors at one of our recent donor events. However, what he said was so much more."

15.  The OAG's Sandusky investigation uncovered records showing A.M. was in The Second Mile from 1996 (or fifth grade) until 2001(or ninth grade).   

Analysis:  A.M. clearly made a false statement about his participation in TSM's programs in his November 9th interview.  It is highly probable that he was influenced to do so to ensure that The Second Mile would not be ensnared by any crimes arising from the 2001 shower incident. 

16.  After Everhart permitted him to read the Sandusky grand jury report, A.M. made a false statement that the slapping sounds (heard by McQueary) were from him slapping the walls and slapping towels.   A.M. recanted this statement during a March 16, 2012 interview when he told investigators that his mother gave him the story and that he went along with it.

Analysis:  A.M. clearly made a false statement about the source of the sounds heard by McQueary.

17.  A.M. stated he was in the locker room the night of the incident because he heard a locker room door close.   He also stated that he had heard the locker room doors close before, thereby negating that the sound could be the determining factor to prove his presence on the night in question.   

18.   His statement that he did not see McQueary was also compelling evidence that he was not in the locker room on February 9, 2001.  McQueary’s trial testimony of seeing a boy in the locker room was corroborated by the trial testimony of Dr. Jonathan Dranov.  Dranov stated that a boy stuck his head out from the side of the shower and looked at McQueary.  After that, an arm reached out and pulled the boy back. 

19.  A.M.'s statement that Sandusky called or spoke to him that week of the incident and told him that they were seen in the locker room by McQueary is not supported by the evidence.  PSU Athletic Director, Timothy Curley did not tell Sandusky who observed him and A.M. in the showers.   E-mail evidence from the Sandusky investigation revealed that Curley did not speak with Sandusky until about four weeks after the incident (on March 7, 2001).  

20.  A.M.'s drawing of the locker room was the most compelling evidence that he was NOT the person with Sandusky in the Lasch building on February 9, 2001. The drawing simply didn't come close to matching reality. 

Analysis: The diagram reveals that A.M. was never in the Lasch Building Staff Locker Room on February 9, 2001 or any other time.


Sandusky's legal claim that Joe McGettigan believed A.M. to be V2 is not supported by the evidence.  McGettigan had a legitimate evidentiary basis to determine A.M. was not in the shower with Sandusky on February 9, 2001.  

[1] Lanning, K.V., Child Molesters:  A Behavioral Analysis, page 75. 
[2] Abel GG, Becker JV, Mittelman M, Cunningham-Rathner J, Rouleau JL, Murphy WD. Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. J Interpers Violence. 1987;2:3-25