Ample evidence reveals that Dr. Jack
Raykovitz and others knowingly endangered the welfare of children by turning a blind eye to Sandusky's continued contact with children after January 2009
By
Ray Blehar
May 31, 2017; 10:11 AM
During
former Penn State University (PSU) president Graham Spanier’s trial for
Endangering the Welfare of Children (EWOC) and related conspiracy, Dr. Jack
Raykovitz testified about Jerry Sandusky’s role at The Second Mile (TSM) charity
and the 2001 incident on the PSU campus.
The
Commonwealth tried to portray Sandusky as simply the figurehead of TSM and
Raykovitz, for the most part played along.
He made two false statements under oath regarding Sandusky’s contact
with children through the charity.
Sandusky’s
Role in Children’s Programs
Raykovitz
(falsely) testified that Sandusky was not part of any therapy or programs at
the charity and that he mostly gave speeches to kids or addressed groups.
That
testimony was rebutted by Wendell Courtney on the first day of the trial.
Courtney
testified (at 181) that Sandusky was involved in TSM’s fitness programs (i.e.,
Friend Fitness) and mentoring programs.
Moreover,
numerous victims testified during the Sandusky played with them in the swimming
pool during TSM’s Summer Challenge (i.e., summer camps) programs. In addition, defense witnesses at the trial
testified that Sandusky served as a mentor to them.
TSM
counselors and volunteers also confirmed that Sandusky’s mentorship of teen boys
was well known by nearly everyone at the charity. One stated that Sandusky would usually appear
at Summer Challenge camp every evening – when it was time for the swimming
activity -- with the teen he was mentoring in tow.
It
is almost certain that Ditka knew Raykovitz was being untruthful about this
subject – and a few others during his testimony.
Access
to Children after January 2009
Interestingly,
Raykovitz later contradicted his first statement when he told another lie under
direct questioning by Laura Ditka.
Ditka
asked about the charity’s actions after Clinton County Children and Youth
Services (Clinton CYS) called TSM about an abuse complaint in 2008. Raykovitz responded that the charity “separated him from all programs after that
call.”
Sandusky
lost his ChildLine clearance to work with children in January 2009.
A
ChildLine clearance (i.e., background check) is required for employees and
volunteers who have routine interaction with children. Routine interaction is defined as regular and repeated contact that is
integral to a person’s employment or volunteer
responsibilities.
Raykovitz’s
testimony that Sandusky did not have access to kids in TSM after the November
2008 phone call was clearly false based on ample evidence in the public domain.
News Reports
The
most well-known account of Sandusky’s role at the charity after his abuse
finding was penned by Sara Ganim in August 2012. Ganim wrote a five-part series on TSM’s response
to the Sandusky abuse investigation. She
quoted
then-TSM board member Louis Sheetz, who explained Sandusky’s role at the
charity after he “resigned” in 2009:
“I know the people who run the golf outing
said, ‘He’s a big reason why people come — to see him.’ That makes sense, in my opinion. That’s not involved in programming,” said Louie Sheetz, executive
vice president of marketing for his family’s chain of Pennsylvania gas stations
and convenience stores.
Those
who attended golf outings reported that it was typical for one of the children
Sandusky was mentoring to be riding next to him in the golf cart. That would seemingly qualify for access to
children at a sanctioned event or program.
Here
are additional accounts of Sandusky’s fundraising role and contact with
children after January 2009.
A news
report from The
Progress, a local news outlet serving Clearfield,
Curwensville, Philipsburg, and Moshannon Valley, reported that Sandusky would
be speaking at the Clearfield County Chapter of The Second Mile's all-sports
banquet to be held on March 1, 2009.
From the article:
“Dinner will follow at 5:30 p.m. in the high school cafeteria before those in attendance move to the auditorium where The Second Mile founder Jerry Sandusky will speak, and the players will share stories about their journeys to becoming collegiate student-athletes.”
A November
2011, KDKA
Pittsburgh news report revealed allegations from a mother that Sandusky was
present at TSM’s Summer Challenge Camp in 2010.
The Allentown Morning Call reported Sandusky also attended a celebrity banquet and fundraiser in Fogelsville, Pennsylvania just months after being "indicated." Sandusky also attended that banquet in 2010.
Whether or not crimes were committed after Raykovitz knew of Sandusky's abuse investigation is irrelevant to the EWOC statute. As such, by allowing Sandusky continued access to children and not completely severing Sandusky from the charity, he was knowingly endangering children.
Whether or not crimes were committed after Raykovitz knew of Sandusky's abuse investigation is irrelevant to the EWOC statute. As such, by allowing Sandusky continued access to children and not completely severing Sandusky from the charity, he was knowingly endangering children.
Sandusky’s
Crimes after 2009
There
is some dispute over whether or not Sandusky victimized children after being “indicated”
for abuse in 2009. Two individuals, Victim 9 and D.F., are on the
public record that they were victimized after 2008 and perhaps into 2009.
Victim
9
Victim
9 testified that he was in contact with Sandusky and was victimized through his
sixteenth birthday that occurred on July 29, 2009.
Earlier
direct testimony at the trial revealed that Victim 9 equivocated when asked
when the abuse ended, stating he was 15 or 16. However, he was definitive under
cross-examination (above). Victim 9’s civil lawsuit stated he was victimized past his sixteenth birthday.
The
Commonwealth’s first Bill of Particulars, dated February 21, 2012, identified
the summer of 2009 as the end date of Victim 9’s victimization. In May 2018, Fina changed the end date to
December 2008 – which is after the call to TSM but before Sandusky was “indicated”
for abuse.
Based
on evidence of Fina’s deceptions during the Sandusky and Conspiracy of Silence
cases as well as Victim 9’s testimony and lawsuit, it is almost certain that
the amended Bill of Particulars and date change was a C.Y.A. move by the Office
of Attorney General (OAG).
The delay in
arresting Sandusky endangered Victim 9.
D.F.
The
D.F. civil lawsuit stated he was a participant in TSM from 2004 through 2012
and was groomed and victimized by Sandusky in 2008 and/or 2009. The lawsuit is unclear about when the
incident in 2009 occurred or if it occurred in 2009 at all.
During
the press conference for Geoffrey Moulton’s investigation of the Sandusky case,
then AG Kathleen Kane stated that there were two individuals who made claims of
being victimized after 2009. D.F. was
one of those individuals.
Fina
confirmed that information, but he also told the press that D.F. was uncertain
about the date and had credibility issues.
A fair reading of the D.F. lawsuit reveals that Fina was honest about
the date issue but was dishonest regarding D.F’s credibility.
D.F.’s
account was every bit as credible as Victim 10’s – who Fina presented as a
witness at the Sandusky trial and was able to secure guilty verdicts for his
allegations.
There is little doubt that the jury would have convicted some or all of D.F.'s allegations if he had been presented as a witness.
Conclusions
Given
all the information in the public domain about Sandusky’s interactions with
children after 2009, it is clear that Ditka, Schulte, and other prosecutors
before them, like Frank Fina and Bruce Beemer, were turning a blind eye to evidence
of Sandusky’s illicit contact with children while he was a volunteer at TSM.
Not
only should Raykovitz have been charged with EWOC, but so should Fina and
others who purposely delayed the arrest of Sandusky.