Thursday, December 28

Wash Post Writes Fair Story on Sandusky Scandal

Investigative reporter Will Hobson did a good job covering most of the key questions that still remain open about Penn State University's decisions in response to the Sandusky matter.  That said, there are a few missing pieces of information that add needed context.  

Ray Blehar

December 28, 2017, 9:23 PM EST

The Washington Post released a story today that covers many of the key questions that require answers in the search for the truth about the Sandusky scandal.   It was a refreshing read compared to most other columns that continue to report the now-disproved allegations of a conspiracy and cover-up.


The column points out many important facts that have been glossed over, under-appreciated, and/or unreported in the media:

- Child welfare workers were aware Sandusky was showering with children and didn't consider that to be a warning sign of child abuse (but Penn State University (PSU) officials were condemned for not recognizing those same signs);

- Dr. Jack Raykovitz, the Executive Director of Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile (TSM), advised Sandusky to wear a swim suit as his solution to PSU's report of Sandusky showering kids;

- The conflict of interest between former PSU Board of Trustees Chairman Ira Lubert and TSM and  poor optics and governance negligence of Lubert running the settlement claims process;

- Experts weighing in that PSU's settlements excluding TSM from liability to be highly unusual;

- The testimony of PSU administrators at the trial of former President Graham Spanier continued to contradict that Mike McQueary made a report of a sexual nature in 2001; and,

- The single misdemeanor criminal convictions and extremely light sentences of former PSU administrators Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz were rather hollow victories for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) -- that spent six years and expended tremendous resources on the case.

Saturday, December 23

Setting the Record Straight on Paterno and Penn State

The majority of the public remains in the dark about the facts of the Sandusky (a.k.a., Penn State) Scandal because their knowledge of it is mostly based on inaccurate information provided by law enforcement officials, misleading media reports, the Freeh Report, and opinion pieces that were disguised as news

Ray Blehar

December 23, 2017. 6:10 PM EST, Updated at 10:50 PM

For the last six years, many Penn Staters have found themselves repeatedly correcting the record in discussions with friends, family, football fans, and many others about what really happened at Penn State University(PSU) regarding the Sandusky scandal. 

For the most part, here's what the public believes in a nutshell:

In 2001, Joe Paterno was told about an employee -- Jerry Sandusky -- raping a boy in the football building and did nothing about it.  Paterno, football coaches, and other high ranking PSU officials were aware of prior sex acts by Sandusky and stayed quiet about them to protect the football program.  As a result of the cover up, Sandusky was able to lure boys to campus and molest them up  until the time he was arrested in November 2011.  

The facts contradict the public's beliefs at every turn.

Thursday, November 23

Sally Jenkins Email -- The rest of the story

After only a cursory review of the Freeh Report, I sent an email to Sally Jenkins and Sara Ganim challenging some of the findings/assertions in the report.  Jenkins provided a weak response to just one of the challenges and had no response for the rest.  Ganim, as usual, didn’t respond at all.

Ray Blehar

In Tuesday's blogpost, I shared an email response that Sally Jenkins sent me on July 13, 2012 -- just a day after Louis Freeh released the Freeh Report and held a widely televised press conference.   

What you didn't see is my initial email to Jenkins and Sara Ganim that challenged several of the assertions made by Freeh.  

From: Ray Blehar []
Sent: 07/13/2012 02:25 PM MST
To: "" <>; Sally Jenkins
Subject: Freeh report - evidentiary leaps

In reading through the Freeh report and hearing some of his public statements, I found that some of the conclusions about Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno are unsupported by the evidence in the report and the report relies on hindsight in a number of occasions to proscribe how PSU officials should have reacted to the incidents.  While many of the conclusions in the report are correct and undeniable, I believe Judge Freeh took evidentiary leaps or used information that occurred outside of the timeframe of the incidents to come to the conclusions and/or suggest actions.  

1.  Freeh states Paterno (among others) was kept informed of the 1998 investigation.

This is unsupported by the evidence, which consist of just two e-mails.  The first e-mail vaguely states the coach was informed and the second that he inquired about the status.  There is no evidence of other updates to Paterno.  Based on the evidence, Freeh cannot even reasonably conclude that Paterno got EVEN one update.  Freeh also admits that his investigation could not find information that Paterno was even informed of the result of the 1998 investigation.

Jenkins attempted to defend this argument, stating that the two emails were "slam dunks" that "Paterno was fully briefed on a police investigation he followed anxiously in 1998."

For the record, here are those "slam dunk" emails.

Wednesday, November 8

McQueary's Story Doesn't Fit With Jerry's Showering Ritual

The ritualistic nature of Sandusky showering with boys makes it highly unlikely that Mike saw any physical contact in the Lasch Building showers

Ray Blehar

November 8, 2017, 10:33 AM EST

Jerry Sandusky's showering with boys was a ritualistic behavior that followed an identical pattern each time -- down to the shower heads he would select.   And that pattern casts more doubt on what Mike McQueary witnessed in the Lasch Building's Staff Locker Room.

According to internationally recognized sex crimes expert James Clemente, sex offenders like Jerry Sandusky engage in repeated, almost identical patterns of ritualistic behavior.  In his report for the Paterno family, Clemente wrote (my emphasis added):

"Child molesters’ grooming and offending behavior can be broken down into M.O. (method of operation) and ritual. While their M.O. can develop and evolve over time and will typically be tailored and responsive to the vulnerabilities and reactions of each individual child victim, offenders also engage in repeated, almost identical, patterns of ritualistic behaviorExperience tells offenders which patterns of behavior most successfully groom and seduce targeted children and help them get away with their crimes. Their inner fantasies, needs and desires dictate their ritualistic behavior."


"One of Sandusky’s primary grooming and offending techniques was showering with boys as a way to get the boys into a naked and vulnerable position. Once in the shower, Sandusky typically engaged in a pattern of activity that allowed him to have physical contact with the boys."

This drawing from Victim #5's initial interview included this rendering of he and Sandusky's position in the shower.  That positioning would not have afforded McQueary the ability to see much of anything.

Monday, November 6

Barenaked Ladies Heap More Doubt on McQueary...and Freeh

Barenaked Ladies performed at the Bryce Jordan Center on Friday, February 9, 2001 -- heaping even more doubt about McQueary's version of events and the competency of Louis Freeh's investigation

hat tip, Wendy Silverwood
Ray Blehar

November 6, 2017, 2:06 PM EST, Updated 9:16 PM EST

According to Mike McQueary, he believed the infamous shower incident in the Lasch Football Building (LFB) occurred on the Friday night before Spring Break 2001 or 2002 because the campus was empty.   

When the date was later adjusted to February 9, 2001, the idea that campus was empty wouldn't have been so, however, the LFB would have been deserted because the grueling football recruiting period had just ended and the staff would have taken some time off.

Regardless,  Mike's reasons for going to the LFB that Friday still don't add up.   And now, the latest evidence adds even more doubt to Mike's scenario considering that he had no recollection of  a major concert event taking place on campus that night.

This evidence also supports the notion that Louis Freeh's $8.5 million dollar investigation wasn't worth a nickel.

Wednesday, October 25

Eshbach's Trail of Misdeeds

While Eshbach was fingered for leaking the grand jury presentment, that wasn't the only time she operated outside the rules.

Ray Blehar

October 25, 2017, 9:45 PM EDT

During the trial of former Penn State University (PSU) President Graham Spanier, prosecution witness Mike McQueary let it slip that former Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach told him they were going to arrest some people and the Office of Attorney General (OAG) was going to leak it out.

While that is likely the most famous leak in the Jerry Sandusky case, there were other leaks and it appears that Eshbach was behind at least one of them.  Moreover, when she wasn't leaking, she was apparently engaging in obstructing the investigation (and arrest) of a serial child molester and assisting in the railroading of the PSU 3.

Eshbach was assigned to the Sandusky case on March 19, 2009 by then Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina.   While Eshbach was officially in charge of the investigation, the buck didn't really doesn't stop with her because Fina was supervising the case.   Fina was the head of the OAG's Criminal Law Division.

And of course, at the top of the OAG food chain during the investigation was former governor "One Term Tom" Corbett.

Monday, October 16

McQueary's Friday Night Doesn't Add Up & More

Evidence and common sense says that neither of the two versions of events that Mike McQueary gave for his activities on Friday, February 9, 2001 add up.

Ray Blehar

October 16, 2017: 11:40 PM EDT

On February 9, 2001, Mike McQueary was a 27 year-old graduate assistant for the Penn State University (PSU) football team who stumbled upon Jerry Sandusky and a child showering together on a Friday evening, called his father, and then reported the incident to Joe Paterno the next morning.

Those are just about the only details that have been consistent about that incident.

McQueary gave two versions regarding what he was doing at the Lasch Building that night and neither of them make sense -- even when the incorrect date is changed to the correct date. 

The Date

As memories are faulty, Mike did not recall the exact date or even the year of the incident.  In his handwritten statement to police, he wrote it was either 2001 or 2002, but was pretty sure it was 2002.

Under cross-examination on July 29, 2013 (when the correct date was well known), Mike was asked (page 38) if he was thought the incident was the Friday before Spring break because of it being a quiet time on campus.
McQueary:  Reasons to be
 be on campus don't add up.

He responded: "Yes.  That's how I remembered it. Yes."

That answer is somewhat correct.  More specifically, it was a very quiet time in the football facilities where Mike worked because Wednesday, February 7th was National Letter of Intent Day and the PSU staff routinely took time off after the hectic recruiting period ended.

This is a critical fact when evaluating Mike's versions of events -- and so are the football activities, or lack thereof, prior to Spring Break.  The football staff takes a break just like the rest of the University does.  Spring practice commenced upon the players returning from break and the 2001 Blue-White game was held on April 21st.

There was nothing in his job as a football graduate assistant that required him to be present on the campus.

Monday, October 9

Potential Bombshell: Feb 9th meeting was fabricated?

Based on an email in the McQueary v. Penn State civil proceedings it certainly appears that Mike McQueary did not meet with his father on February 9th, 2001 -- and the Attorney General's office knew it.

Correcting the Record: Part 1: McQueary's 2001 Eye-witness Report

Most of the publics' knowledge of the Sandusky scandal was obtained from media reports that were based on lies propagated by government officials, the NCAA, and former FBI Director Louis Freeh.  There's so many lies out there that it will take a series of posts to debunk them all.

Ray Blehar

McQueary reported a rape to Joe Paterno and other Penn State officials in 2001.

McQueary did not witness nor did he report a rape to anyone in 2001.


The Sandusky grand jury presentment of November 4. 2011 provided a misleading account of what eye witness Michael McQueary reported to Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident.  Rather than stating explicitly what McQueary reported, it stated he reported "what he had seen" which led the media and the public to erroneously conclude the explicit details were reported to Paterno.

Wednesday, September 27

The Imaginary World of Louis Freeh

Louis Freeh's statements after the dismissal of Spanier's defamation lawsuit are unsupported by the facts established by independent reviews conducted by Pennsylvania government officials and by the court rulings pertaining to the cases of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz

Ray Blehar

September 27, 2017, 9:31 EDT

On September 20, 2017, legal representatives of former Penn State University (PSU) President Graham Spanier and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stipulated that Spanier’s defamation lawsuit against Freeh would be dismissed while Spanier case was on appeal.

Immediately after the ruling, Freeh issued a statement with an addendum that made a number of factually challenged assertions regarding his investigation and report on the Sandusky scandal at PSU.'s difficult to decide where to start in order to debunk Freeh’s nonsense. 

Given the number of falsehoods, half-truths, opinions, and innuendo in these documents, it's difficult to decide where to start in order to debunk Freeh’s nonsense.  As such, the following analysis focuses on Freeh’s statements that are demonstrably false and those that stand in the way of improvements for the safety and welfare of children.

FALSE:  Freeh Investigation Was Limited to PSU

In the addendum to the September 20, 2017 statement, Freeh falsely claimed that the scope of his investigation was limited to PSU and therefore he did not address failures at The Second Mile (TSM) or the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Public Welfare (DPW). 

 “the scope of his review was not to review issues at either institution or recommend changes for these institutions.”

The fact of the matter is that the engagement letter for the Freeh investigation required the former FBI director to:

 “perform an independent, full, and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegations of sexual abuse at the facilities and the alleged failure of The Pennsylvania State University personnel to report sexual abuse…”

In other words, this letter required a full and complete investigate of the crimes that occurred on campus from 1996 through 2002 – as reported in the Sandusky grand jury presentment.

Freeh’s investigation failed to do so.

A full and independent investigation would have determined how and why Sandusky was able to commit crimes against children on campus prior to 1998.  As such the investigation ultimately would have involved understanding the roles and responsibilities of DPW and TSM as they pertained to protecting foster children and adoptive children, and the charity’s participants, respectively.

As the evidence shows, not only did they not investigate the crimes on campus from 1996 to 1998, but they also failed to conduct independent reviews of facts and evidence related to the crimes from 1998 up to Sandusky’s arrest in 2011.

FALSE: Not a “Single Fact that the Report Got Wrong”

In a desperate attempt to defend The Freeh Report, the former FBI director attacked his critics, stating:

“Critics have raised a number of issues with the report, none of which identified a single fact that the report got wrong.”

Freeh cited just one example of his critics being wrong, but even that example was dubious at best. 

Critics complained that Freeh did not have adequate evidence to draw the conclusion that a reference to “coach” in an email was Paterno. This issue remained in doubt until Spanier’s trial in 2017 when Tim Curley testified that the email's reference to “coach” indeed was Paterno.  

However, there were many, many more criticisms of the quality and accuracy of The Freeh Report than just the debate over whether or not “coach” was Paterno.  

Among many other things, The Freeh Report did not properly reflect the proceedings at the Sandusky trial.

The best example of this is The Freeh Report’s version of the 2000 incident involving the janitors that contained a dozen errors in a little over one page.  

First, the report incorrectly stated (at 62) the location of the crime was the East Area Locker Room.  Later, in detailing the incident (at 65), it incorrectly stated that the location was the Assistant Coaches Locker Room in the Lasch Building.  So not only were both locations wrong but they weren't even consistent.

As established by the trial testimony, the incident occurred in the Staff Locker Room of the Lasch Building. 

Next, The Freeh Report (at 65) stated that multiple witnesses testified about the 2000 incident at the Sandusky trial.  The fact is that only one witness (i.e., janitor) testified about the incident.   The report goes on to provide ten statements purported to be the trial testimony of the witnesses, none of which was part of the testimony of the single witness, Ronald "Buck" Petrosky (see below).

Freeh's version of the janitor incident was riddled with errors.

In addition to the error filled version of the janitor incident, The Freeh Report’s timeline (at 19) also incorrectly reported that Victim 6 was assaulted in the Lasch Building shower in May 1998.  Of course, this is incorrect for several reasons including the Lasch Building didn’t exist in 1998 and that Sandusky was found not guilty of indecently assaulting the victim.

The report’s timeline (at 25) reports Victim 5 was assaulted even though the jury acquitted Sandusky of indecent assault.

If this $8.5 million investigation couldn’t correctly report the trial proceedings, which are a matter of public record, one has to wonder how many other imaginary things Freeh concocted from investigative information that was not in the public domain.  Note that in the BP case, an attorney gave a sworn statement that Freeh's team constructed a completely inaccurate version of what she told them and used it to recommend charges against someone who had done nothing wrong.  Freeh was sued for defamation in that case.

Even a cursory review of this report should have raised questions about its accuracy and quality.   The report’s appendix begins at Exhibit 2 and ends with Exhibit 10.  In between, Exhibits 4, 7, 8, and 9 are absent.  Why were these Exhibits absent and why didn’t the Freeh team properly renumber the Exhibits?

Moreover, the report went public with an accompanying errata sheet identifying errors in the report.  In this day of electronic publishing, why not simply make the changes to the report?

The evidence strongly supports the theory The Freeh Report was completed prior to the Sandusky trial then hastily reviewed and edited afterwards to meet a deadline established by the PSUBOT’s Special Investigations Task Force.  Some errors were purposely left in the report to deceive the readers about the facts (knowing that few people would read the errata sheet).

Those who have read and evaluated The Freeh Report know it is incomplete, inaccurate, and of poor quality.

Anyone who stands by the completeness, quality, and accuracy of the report, including Louis Freeh, undoubtedly has not bothered to actually read it.

FALSE:  “Provided ‘smoking gun’ evidence to prosecutors”

Freeh’s contention that his investigation provided the smoking gun evidence (see below) to prosecutors is simply false.   Moreover, Freeh’s contention may be an admission to a conspiracy to obstruct justice by the OAG and the Freeh Group.

Freeh relied on the media’s lazy reporting and, subsequently, the public’s lack of knowledge of the July 2013 preliminary hearing of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to continue perpetuating this falsehood.

First, no one from Freeh’s investigative team ever testified to their role in the recovery of the email evidence and/or the Schultz file.  

Next, neither the PSU nor the OAG information technology professional who testified at that proceeding mentioned that Freeh’s team had any role whatsoever in discovering and/or providing the critical email evidence.  

OAG IT professional Braden Cook, who joined the investigation in fall 2011, testified that he received the emails from OAG’s computer services and provided no details on their chain of custody beyond that.   Cook’s testimony did not establish the exact date of original receipt of the email evidence by law enforcement.

PSU’s IT professional, John Corro, testified that he recovered the emails and provided 3 thumb drives containing them to former PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin in March or April of 2011.

At Spanier’s grand jury colloquy, Baldwin promised to turn them over to the OAG and grand jury judge by Friday, April 15, 2011 – at least six months before Freeh was hired.

The May 30, 2014 Report to the Attorney General on the Investigation of Gerald A. Sandusky (aka, the Moulton Report) revealed (at 158) that Pennsylvania State Police trooper Scott Rossman received a “thumb drive containing Penn State emails” on July 7, 2011 – again, before Freeh’s team was hired.

The evidence clearly established that the email evidence was obtained well before the Freeh group was hired to conduct the investigation.

Freeh also claimed to have a role in the discovery of Schultz’s notes.  That’s at least partially true, as former PSU administrative assistant Kimberly Belcher testified that she refused to provide Schultz’s notes or any other evidence to Freeh’s investigators.

The July 2013 preliminary hearing testimony confirmed that Belcher provided the notes under force of subpoena to OAG officials in April 2012.

The Freeh Report affixes a May 2012 date to Schultz’s notes – confirming that they were in the possession of the OAG before they were obtained by his team. 

Court records, as well as an official investigation into the Sandusky investigation, confirmed that the Freeh investigation did not uncover any of the critical (“smoking gun”) evidence used in the prosecution of PSU officials.

Freeh’s continued assertion that his team discovered or assisted in the recovery of this evidence is not only false, but could be considered an admission  that he entered into  a conspiracy with OAG (and PSU) officials to frame Curley,  Schultz, and Spanier for obstructing the Sandusky investigation.

FALSE: “Report’s Findings Repeatedly Sustained”

The facts in the previous passage confirm that the Freeh investigation did not uncover the emails and notes used in the prosecution of the PSU 3 and that his claims have been refuted by the court records.  

Regardless, Freeh continued to promote the veracity of his investigative report on PSU:

"There have been numerous opportunities for various courts and agencies to review the report since 2012.  At each opportunity, the report’s findings have been confirmed.”
According to The Freeh Report’s key findings Curley and Schultz, along with Spanier and Joe Paterno, actively concealed information about Jerry Sandusky's serial sexual abuse of children and had a total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims.   

The Freeh Report's language was mimicked by the OAG on November 1, 2012 when it issued its press release in conjunction with the Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment. 

“This is not a mistake, an oversight or a misjudgment. This was a conspiracy of silence by top officials at Penn State, working to actively conceal the truth, with total disregard to the suffering of children…” 


“They essentially turned a blind eye to the serial predatory acts of Jerry Sandusky committed on campus...”

The number of charges in the case against PSU officials ballooned from 4 to 24.
Previously, Curley and Schultz were charged with 1 count each of perjury and failure to report child abuse.  

The new charges against the three PSU officials – now including Spanier -- were 2 counts each for endangering the welfare of a child, 2 counts each conspiracy to endanger, and 1 count each for obstruction of justice and related conspiracy in addition to the prior charges.   Spanier was also charged with perjury and failure to report.  

By the time of Spanier’s trial in March 2017, all but three of the charges against him were dismissed.   The charges related to obstruction of justice and conspiracy that emanated from the Freeh investigation was dismissed.

Curley and Schultz pleaded to one count each of endangering the welfare of a child. All other charges were dismissed.

As such, Freeh's claim that the findings of his report were not challenged or disproved in the courts is not connected to reality. 

FALSE:  PSU Was Accountable for Sandusky’s Crimes

Freeh’s statements, as well as many in the media and public, ludicrously contend that it is blame shifting and “misguided” when individuals bring up the roles and responsibilities of the PA Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and The Second Mile (TSM) for protecting children from Sandusky.

Freeh’s addendum contended:

“More critically, the concept that others may also have had some responsibility for Sandusky’s acts in no way absolves Penn State from its own accountability.”

The Freeh Report’s Chapter 8 cited excerpts of the 2001 and 2012 versions of the PA child abuse reporting law but did not provide any conclusion whatsoever regarding whether or not Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and/or Spanier violated the law.

The reason for this was because Freeh, as a former judge and prosecutor, obviously knew that none of the officials at PSU who received the report of the 2001 incident had a legal requirement or mandate to make a report of it.

As such, he skirted the issue in The Freeh Report by omitting his “reasonable conclusion.”  

In the more recent addendum, Freeh also skirted the legal issue using the non-legal term of “accountability” rather than using terms such as “legally responsible” or “criminally negligent.”

The failure to report charge against PSU officials was eventually dismissed by the court in 2016.

FALSE:  Blaming DPW Is Misguided

In what could be considered the most delusional, irresponsible, and dangerous statement made by the former FBI director, he offers that those who have pointed out that the child protection system (i.e., DPW and Centre County CYS) failed in the Sandusky case are “misguided.”

“This effort to redirect attention away from Penn State’s role in Sandusky’s offenses is misguided.”

Amazingly, this statement by Freeh came less than one week after PA Auditor General Eugene DePasquale issued a scathing report that concluded the Commonwealth’s child protection system is broken and puts children at risk.  

Moreover, DePasquale’s State of the Child report (at 6) confirms a key point repeatedly made by those who Freeh criticizes as “misguided:”  

The Freeh Report and media reports echoing the OAG's allegations that a reporting failure at PSU enabled Sandusky's crimes surely influenced the changes made by the PA general assembly.  Those changes focused almost exclusively on expanding the definitions of child abuse, increasing the span of mandated reporters, and providing harsh penalties for not reporting.  

The results of the changes to the laws – all meant to improve child safety -- were disastrous, as reported by DePasquale’s report on ChildLine in October 2016 and his September 2017 report on The State of the Child.

The general assembly’s decision to change the law without providing additional staffing and/or resources to handle the increased call volume resulted in 42,000 missed calls in 2015.  The report revealed that 42% of calls were either unanswered or dropped. 

DePasquale offered that the numbers were disturbing because it remains unknown how many children in need of services and protection fell through the cracks.

As I wrote here and here, The Freeh Report missed a golden opportunity to inform and educate the public about the failures of PA’s child protection system that contributed to Sandusky's crimes and instead swept them under the rug.  

DePasquale’s 2017 State of the Child Report has finally brought to light the problems that the “misguided” have been discussing for years, especially that children remain unsafe after the call has been made to ChildLine and after that child is receiving protective services from county agencies.  From the State of the Child report (at 2):

The State of the Child report confirmed that DPW is broken.
Some of the uninformed citizenry may attempt to make the argument that the system has only recently become dysfunctional, however DePasquale’s report confirmed that DPW officials cited a need to revamp the training program for caseworkers in 2001.

In short, caseworkers were not equipped for field work from the training they were receiving at the time they were called into investigate Sandusky in 1998.  The evidence related to that investigation confirms that was the case, as nearly one dozen signs of potential sexual abuse were seemingly discounted by caseworkers and Sandusky was determined NOT to be a danger to children.

FALSE:  Dissenters Disservice Victims and Penn State

Last but not least, Freeh asserts that those who have taken issues with the conclusions in his report are doing a disservice to the victims and are at odds with those who want to improve the institution.

“…a small group denies the facts that have been proven over and over and seeks to fight yesterday’s battles.  This is a disservice to the many victims of Sandusky’s crimes, as well as the thousands of decent Penn State students, athletes, faculty, administrators, trustees, alumni, and supporters who wish to improve their institution...”

The truth of the situation is that the “small group” understands that The Freeh Report dishonored the Sandusky victims by promoting a false narrative that resulted in more victims and a more dire situation for PA's children.

There is no doubt among well-informed individuals that a call and/or report to ChildLine regarding the 2001 shower incident would not have resulted in an investigation. 

The fact of the matter was that because the victim in the 2001 incident was unknown, the intake workers could not have even started to investigate.  From the State of the Child report (at 12):

Moreover, the intake workers would have never even gotten a chance to investigate the report because it would have been screened out before it reached them.  From the State of the Child report (page 12).

DePasquale’s State of the Child Report finally made public what that "small group that denies the facts" has known since 2013.

The Sandusky scandal was never a Penn State problem.  It was a state of Pennsylvania problem.

The system could not have stopped Sandusky because of the way it operated and the recommendations from the Freeh Report and the public statements of Louis Freeh did little to nothing to prevent the future victimization of children.

The Freeh Report helped keep PA's children in harm's way


There is an imaginary world of a child protection system in which every call is answered and a well-trained caseworker is promptly dispatched to properly investigate every incident.  

Then there is the real world where 42% of calls are missed, almost half of the calls received are screened out, and there not enough caseworkers to properly investigate the cases.

Unfortunately, the imaginary world is the one in which most of the media and the public lives and who still contend that a single phone call in 2001 to ChildLine would have stopped Jerry Sandusky.  

It is painfully obvious that Louis Freeh still lives in that imaginary world.