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.