tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post8400137215188212657..comments2024-01-30T04:57:48.673-05:00Comments on Second Mile Sandusky Scandal: EILEEN MORGAN: Sandusky is Guilty: From his own mouthBarry Bozemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-32060981948042435872014-06-10T22:03:54.018-04:002014-06-10T22:03:54.018-04:00Under PA C.S. 23 § 6303. Definitions.
(1) The e...Under PA C.S. 23 § 6303. Definitions.<br /><br />(1) The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist another individual to engage in sexually explicit conduct, which includes, but is not limited to, the following:<br />(i) Looking at the sexual or other intimate parts of a child or another individual for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire in any individual.<br /><br />So, by that definition, actual sex does not have to occur -- only that the perpetrator gratifies a sexual desire by committing the act. V6 stated he did not see an erection, so Gricar's explanation would fit that individual crime. However, Sandusky was convicted of the V6 crimes of Corruption of Minors and Endangering the Welfare of Children by course of conduct.<br /><br />18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4304. Endangering welfare of children.<br /> (a) Offense defined.--<br /> (1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the<br /> welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that<br /> employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he<br /> knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a<br /> duty of care, protection or support.<br /> (2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an<br /> official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of<br /> a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63<br /> (relating to child protective services).<br /> (3) As used in this subsection, the term "person<br /> supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than<br /> a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training<br /> or control of a child.<br /> (b) Grading.--An offense under this section constitutes a<br /> misdemeanor of the first degree. However, where there is a<br /> course of conduct of endangering the welfare of a child, the<br /> offense constitutes a felony of the third degree.<br /><br />As for your last statement, if you were consenting adults or within legal age limits, the activities would not be considered grooming.<br />Ray Bleharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-70059431208217256682014-06-10T20:16:18.684-04:002014-06-10T20:16:18.684-04:00Shortly after the scandal broke,I remember a sensi...Shortly after the scandal broke,I remember a sensible attorney who knew Gricer, say on a tv panel, "the reason Sandusky was not arrested in 98 is because his behavior did not rise to the level of sex abuse (no erection etc which at that time was necessary for sex abuse). Question, if grooming does not lead to sex, is it sex abuse? No disrespect but I do not think it does. If theory is so every man that kissed me would be guilty of sex abuse! Alum63https://www.blogger.com/profile/17285249839629009560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-11770862701480061942014-06-10T13:28:28.371-04:002014-06-10T13:28:28.371-04:00Whether misguided or intentional, Sandusky’s prose...Whether misguided or intentional, Sandusky’s prosecution was very short sighted – it was all about getting the folks in the AG’s office a win rather than a bigger win for the children in the Commonwealth of PA. That the legal system and the child welfare establishment haven’t sounded the alarm about “nice guy” molesters shows me that the focus hasn’t been understanding the problem and fixing it as much as it was limiting responsibility and assigning blame (not to mention meting out punishment) to individuals outside of their collective circles. Trying to move forward in a positive way would have been hammering home the reality that the danger of “old man in a raincoat” molesters, while significant, is less than that posed by charismatic molesters like Sandusky. Thanks to Eileen (and others) for the efforts to raise awareness in spite of the establishment’s disingenuous avoidance of the issue.<br /><br />In full agreement with Ray’s comments, that establishment has been enabling future predators through the false narrative that pedophiles’ behaviors are so easily diagnosed. As Mr. Vernon indicates, the behaviors shown by a whole series of people, most of whom are not molesters, are similar to many of those exhibited by Sandusky. Don’t know a good analogy, but the extent to which certain behaviors appear “red” or “green” depends on “filter” used to view them. In 1998 Chambers et al chose to view Sandusky’s behavior with one filter and identified it as “red” whereas as Seasock used a different filter and saw “green” Collectively, the experts tacitly indicated that Seasock’s filter was the correct one to use in evaluating Sandusky’s behavior and he walked away as a free man allowed to have free and direct access to the children participating in his charity-- with any suspicions effectively expunged in the eyes of the child welfare establishment. In 2001, Mike McQueary probably struggled with which filter to use and functionally deferred the decision others. First his Dad, then Dr. Dranov, on to Penn State, and finally to TSM -- all seemed to have used the same, but ultimately wrong filter. With PSU in particular (probably driven by Schultz who had the most collective background across incidents) the choice of filters to apply in 2001 was most likely influenced and/or reinforced by the guidance and actions shown previously by the experts in 1998. Protecting children requires continued education about the proper len to use in evaluating behavior – it is profoundly bizarre that this call isn’t coming from those with the responsibility children’s welfare.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13065974894515851609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-58018771084018184302014-06-10T12:30:43.202-04:002014-06-10T12:30:43.202-04:00And just today, another report of an attempt to ex...And just today, another report of an attempt to expose, learn from, and progress away from a country's shameful treatment of children:<br /><br />http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/babies-were-inferior-subspecies-30343293.htmlrdkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11007253694089460950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-14723279412482703172014-06-10T10:52:29.951-04:002014-06-10T10:52:29.951-04:00Hi all,
A big clergy-abuse story is discussed a...Hi all, <br /><br />A big clergy-abuse story is discussed at the link below (from yesterday). Lots of info relevant to the Sandusky story. Entire transcript of a recent deposition of a priest integrally involved since the 1980s in "handling" clergy abuse charges. Entire investigative report by Minnesota Public Radio. Recent NPR radio discussion (Diane Rehm program). Attorney Jeff Anderson, also involved since the 1980s. Trials upcoming this year.<br /><br />A quick read through some of this leads me back to where I was when I first heard the Mike McQueary story. Is there/ was there a cultural acceptance of adults having sexual relationships with adolescents, particularly men with boys? Perhaps under the guise of teaching boys about "the birds and the bees"? Jerry apparently referenced his own similar relationship with his father (above, from Eileen's report).<br /><br />I wonder if, to really begin protecting kids, we should consider some type of Truth and Reconciliation effort. Step out of the litigious approach, focus on the harmful impacts to kids, focus on changing the culture. Just as South Africa is progressing into a different culture, perhaps the US can progress such that tomorrow's adults will recognize the long-term negative effects of adult-child sexual activity.<br /><br />http://m.news.stlpublicradio.org/?utm_referrer=#mobile/36827<br /><br />Thank you all for this insightful education.<br />Beckyrdkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11007253694089460950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-792863911490110482014-06-10T08:22:22.913-04:002014-06-10T08:22:22.913-04:00Trying to judge Sandusky's level of criminalit...Trying to judge Sandusky's level of criminality based on the few witnesses presented at the trial is a fool's errand. I agree that there were problems with a lot of the testimony at the trial and that very few victims completely told the truth about the levels of their abuse (and it is the fault of the untrained CSA investigators for taking the victim's statements at face value). A trained CSA investigator would have listened to all the stories and then assessed the credibility based on corroborating evidence. As it was, the abuse levels and the situations in which abuse occurred were inconsistent. I ran this past Jim Clemente who concluded that the prosecutors did not understand the concept of compliant victimization and, as a result, prosecuted Sandusky as the "old man in a raincoat" molester. Clemente also believed that was done to give the victim's a "man's way out." In other words, saying that they were little kids who got overpowered by a big man -- as opposed to victims who were groomed into becoming compliant.<br /><br />The former (being overpowered) is also an easier sell to a jury. Compliant victimization can be a confusing concept and jurors often mistake "compliance" for "consent."<br /><br />It was an easy choice for Fina and McGettigan to turn Sandusky into a "monster" because the conviction would be easier. However, labeling Sandusky as a "monster" does not serve the public's interest because "monsters" are not serial molesters. Serial molesters tend to be family members, friends, coaches, clergy, and other "trusted" members of the community.<br /> Ray Bleharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-82625220001498759422014-06-10T08:09:17.159-04:002014-06-10T08:09:17.159-04:00It seemed obvious tro me that CYS was footdragging...It seemed obvious tro me that CYS was footdragging on the 1998 case. Schreffler called up CYS's Miller, who told Schreffler he'd have to get back to him about who would investigate. Then Miller was assigned to the case, but he told Schreffler after the first day's interviews that CYS had called a meeting "to decide what to do" (according to Schultz's note). The note also revealed that CYS was contemplatinig something less than a full investigation, when the note said "Either way, caseworker felt they would interview Jerry."<br /><br />As history revealed, CYS never interviewed Sandusky. They punted it to DPW. However, they stayed involved in the case and called the DA's office to stop the UP Police from interviewing Sandusky without DPW present.<br /><br />CYS and DPW overlooked much more than naked bear-hugs in the 1998 case. There were at least a dozen signs of possible sex abuse. <br /><br />I believe Sandusky got a "free pass" because of his long time association with DPW and CYS through foster and adoptive care programs and The Second Mile. <br /><br />As for Dottie, she exposed her true feelings in the Matt Lauer interview when she was asked about 1998 when she first stated she would have been uncomfortable if one of her kids had showered with a stranger. Then she excused Jerry's behavior because "he did it with our kids" and further rationalized it was not criminal because there were no charges filed in 1998. However, the latter is disingenous because the news coverage of the 1998 incident reveals that Schreffler thought there should have been charges and - let's face it -- Sandusky was found guilty of crimes related to 1998.<br /><br />As for The Second Mile, it was reported that their VP of Development, Katherine Genovese, told Clinton County CYS that "we had to tell him to back off certain children before." It appears their practice was to move Sandusky along to another child if they got complaints from parents. There will be more revealed about this when the Federal investigation concludes.<br /><br />Ray Bleharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-7162505412944712642014-06-10T03:29:14.881-04:002014-06-10T03:29:14.881-04:00While it is obvious that JS has a psycho-sexual di...While it is obvious that JS has a psycho-sexual disorder, I am profoundly concerned about the lack of physical evidence, the financial incentives of the "victims" to lie and embellish (with Frank Fina's blessing), the obvious perjury of "victims" 5, 9, and 10, and the reason that Frank Fina thought it necessary to fabricate a Hoax involving janitors.<br /><br />Eileen's synopsis is excellent...but wait...It also describes the behavior of teachers, coaches, counselors, and youth group leaders. Why would these people want to spend 6-8 hours per day with children if they weren't attracted to them? Is part of this attraction sexual? Every week I hear of a teacher or coach being arrested for inappropriate sexual behavior with a student. Of course a Freehdian analysis would indicate that everyone from the Principal on down "knew or should have known" about the teacher's deviant behavior, and that there were many ordinary events that should have been parsed as "red flags".<br /><br />There seems to be a very slippery slope here. Many Middle School teachers exhibit the behaviors listed by Eileen, especially gym teachers. That many of these teachers may be pedophiles has a certain allurement, especially based upon my experiences in the West Shore School district. Who knows what evils lurk in the minds of men?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946697156007688080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-74125889604029346012014-06-10T00:55:13.516-04:002014-06-10T00:55:13.516-04:00rdk - Good questions. I too wonder why the media n...rdk - Good questions. I too wonder why the media never had child protection experts comment on why Sandusky's naked bear hugs did not raise red flags with CYS and DPW in 1998. <br /><br />Have standards changed that much since 1998 or did Sandusky get a free pass because he was known to CYS and DPW via his children's charity, adoptions and foster parenting? <br />Tim Bertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06534135581401662154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-66581943882745389152014-06-09T22:20:13.546-04:002014-06-09T22:20:13.546-04:00Eileen, I'm trying to understand how the McQue...Eileen, I'm trying to understand how the McQuearys, Dranov, Fisher's wrestling coach, Dottie S, and all those who were OK with the 1998 finding of unfounded explain their comfort with Jerry's obvious stretching of appropriate boundaries with boys.<br /><br />What certainly seems abusive and WRONG to me apparently did not trigger these folks to act... to immediately stop Sandusky's unsupervised time with underage boys.<br /><br />Hence my question. Is/ was the behavior that Sandusky admits to considered OK by some people? Would the McQuearys, Dranov, Raykovitz, and Heim have needed a report of sexual penetration to call the cops??<br /><br />I would have put a stop to even creepy behavior with my son or nephew. So why was Jerry's KNOWN behavior not stopped by any of those listed above? They likely were not all motivated by money. Or maybe so...rdkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11007253694089460950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-62507867774245806372014-06-09T10:31:14.471-04:002014-06-09T10:31:14.471-04:00I think you and others confuse what is 'creepy...I think you and others confuse what is 'creepy' to what is criminal. And,even if JS didn't have sex with a boy it does not mean he is innocent or not a molester. My article says nothing about sex acts. Perhaps those charges would be overturned with a new trial, but many of those charges would stick based on his own confessions. Let me ask you, if a 10 year old's uncle lived with the family for 3 years and every night went into the child's room and laid on the child for 15 mins (even with clothes on) would you call that creepy or criminal? <br />E Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018445269139572084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-46179191718856200642014-06-09T09:13:05.555-04:002014-06-09T09:13:05.555-04:00Thank you, MacDougal, for this excellent overview ...Thank you, MacDougal, for this excellent overview of yet-to-be-addressed issues of the Sandusky story.<br /><br />And thank you, Eileen, for another clear analysis of things!<br /><br />I am not convinced, however, of the extent of JS's inappropriate interactions with boys. I've watched, listened to, and read all the material we have from JS (except for his book "Touched"), including John Ziegler's direct work with Jerry and Dottie. I think JZ's argument against Sandusky having actual sex with boys is sound. <br /><br />Certainly the specifics noted here by Eileen are CREEPY, and surely no parent would want an adult doing such things with their kids. But did JS and the boys have actual sex (oral, anal, or otherwise), or did JS not take things that far?? <br /><br />A full accounting of the extent of his bad behavior with boys is needed, I think, if we are to ever understand WHY the two McQueary men, Dr Dranov, PSU Police and administrators, and TSM execs and Board thought it OK to not immediately stop Sandusky from any further unsupervised time with boys.rdkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11007253694089460950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-2797520618429300632014-06-09T08:30:35.149-04:002014-06-09T08:30:35.149-04:00Frank Fina mentioned a 1984 report of abuse of San...Frank Fina mentioned a 1984 report of abuse of Sandusky when Spanier testified before a grand jury. This may be related to another incident I was informed about in that date range involving the nephew of a PSU football player. <br /><br /><br />Travis Weaver alleged he was abused between 1992 and 1995. They did not prosecute his case because he was outside the statute of limitations. The SOL is the likely reason that the public is unaware of abuse prior to 1995. <br /><br />Also, in 2008 when Clinton County CYS called the Second Mile to report the incident, VP of Development Katherine Genovese commented that "They had to tell him to back off certain kids before."<br /><br />I agree that Sandusky didn't become a pedophile in 1998. I also believe that his role as a foster and adoptive parent gave him "cover" as a pillar of the community. While he may not have abused his own kids, it made him somewhat bulletproof from being seriously investigated as a molester (as happened in 1998).Ray Bleharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-23080132742875230692014-06-09T08:16:18.499-04:002014-06-09T08:16:18.499-04:00Great post Eileen. I know the rules of cross posti...Great post Eileen. I know the rules of cross posting a certain someone here so I won't link but you can check out my blog for even more on Jerry's own words and guilt. JohnYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746122374888854166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-88196847107550506012014-06-08T23:32:00.116-04:002014-06-08T23:32:00.116-04:00There is also the added complication that the Penn...There is also the added complication that the Penn State BoT, in their headlong rush to "move on" BEFORE proper due process and facts found in evidence could be applied in all these cases, made it clear they were ready to settle out-of-court with ALL of Sandusky's victims. Before the trials of Tim Curley, Graham Spanier and Gary Schultz have been held. They are accused of perjury, failing to report child abuse and entering into a cover-up to hide Sandusky's crimes. Those trials will reveal new evidence and clarify Penn State's actual liability and negligence. There are sufficient legal and evidentiary complications in this case about unanswered questions and reasonable doubt in the prosecution of Sandusky's crimes.<br /><br />While I respect and appreciate Morgan's extensive attempt here to provide clarity about Sandusky's guilt or innocence, there are still several issues she doesn't address about many inconsistencies regarding the prosecution of the Sandusky case. Certainly ex-Sandusky prosecutor Frank Fina's statement that he found NO evidence that Joe Paterno covered up for or had any prior knowledge of Sandusky's crimes refutes the findings of the Freeh report. If Freeh was wrong about Joe Paterno, could he ALSO be wrong about Curley, Schultz and Spanier?<br /><br />Unfortunately, instead of an investigation by PA law enforcement of Penn State's handling of the Sandusky matter which had subpoena power, witness testimony documented by written transcripts and under oath, we now only have the questionable Freeh report as evidence, which had none of those legal safeguards to guarantee the veracity and thoroughness of that investigation. And there is the added lack of evidence and investigation about Second Mile, Jack Raykovitz, Centre Co. CYS, PA DPW, Cynthia Baldwin, Wendell Courtney, Ray Gricar, the Penn State Campus Police and PA State Police and a host of other key players in the "Sandusky scandal" who have NOT yet been investigated, questioned or documented on the record about their roles and responsibilities regarding the Sandusky matter.<br /><br />It is a complex and incomplete record in which ALL the facts and evidence regarding the Sandusky case are STILL not known and need to be investigated and revealed. ONLY THEN can we be sure real "due process" has been properly served in the case of Jerry Sandusky.MacDougalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17010921360016263368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-88239108254634306842014-06-08T23:31:38.193-04:002014-06-08T23:31:38.193-04:00What makes no sense to me in all of this is, where...What makes no sense to me in all of this is, where is Sandusky's pedophile history prior to 1998? It is generally accepted that pedophile behavior doesn't just occur in individuals in their middle age. I find it interesting that NO Sandusky victims seem to have come forward from 1977, when Sandusky founded Second Mile, or the 80's or 90's up until 1995. I believe one of Sandusky's victims has come forward from that time frame. <br /><br />While Morgan puts on a compendium of relevant information here to make her point, the fact is that, based on usual pedophile behavior, it is unlikely that Sandusky became a pedophile in 1998. There is evidence that it happened earlier, but there don't seem to be many documented stories of Sandusky's pedophilia prior to 1998. John Ziegler has pointed this out in the work he has done with Sandusky, which is extensive. It includes several personal interviews with Jerry and Dotty Sandusky. I don't think most people, regardless of John Ziegler's work with Sandusky, buy his assertion that Sandusky is innocent of many of the crimes for which he was convicted. <br /><br />Ziegler does make a reasonable point that no one besides the victims can actually corroborate the charges against Sandusky. There are NO eye-witnesses who actually saw Sandusky molesting anyone in the crimes for which he was convicted. There are no rape kits or other tangible, physical evidence to prove Sandusky committed the crimes, just the accounts and claims of the victims themselves. I am NOT for one minute claiming that EVERY victim making a claim against Sandusky is lying. However, there are enough inconsistencies in SOME of the victim's claims, based on info John Ziegler has uncovered about some of the victims stories, to make it questionable if Sandusky actually did commit sexual abuse on some of those victims. MacDougalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17010921360016263368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-38305448490319018292014-06-08T23:20:33.942-04:002014-06-08T23:20:33.942-04:00In 1998, when The Second Mile Program were told ab...In 1998, when The Second Mile Program were told about the horse playing in the shower. They were in position to tell Jerry that he could no longer take any kid away from the boundaries of the program. Case closed.<br /><br />IMO, Jerry molested some of the boys, BUT I still do not believe he had sex or oral sex with any of them. I volunteer to help handicapped boys and girls and I also enjoy doing being involved with kids at my Church. I love hugging them and playing with them. Jerry had adopted kids and foster kids and thus he already had a stable of potential victims. IMO he wanted to be a father figure to disadvantaged boys and I think he severely overstepped boundaries, BUT why haven't more of his adoptive or foster children stepped forward? The only one who has is Matt and I don't believe him at all and as I understand it neither does his friends or brothers and sisters.. Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08603057200824428464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-52283808107152645332014-06-08T22:35:21.193-04:002014-06-08T22:35:21.193-04:00Eileen: you have a complete list of red flags wavi...Eileen: you have a complete list of red flags waving in front of the licensed officials at The Second Mile. (actually they are rockets and flares, but I digress) Why did they not think to put Sandusky - the charity Founder, Face & Golden Goose - on a shorter leash, lest any whiff of impropriety would cause ruin to his reputation, his family and the charity? Simply boggles the mind!<br /><br />When I first read about the game of "polish soccer" I almost vomited. This is a game I might play with my dog..not a minor I am supposed to be "mentoring". This is not structured play or programming. What exactly was Jerry accessing minors for, under the auspices of The Second Mile and who was monitoring the contact and the progress with these minors, if at all? <br /><br />Speaking of access to minors - why was Jerry allowed to access confidential client info? It was that easy to just call these kids up at home and drive over to their house?<br /><br />The man is also handing out gifts and football tickets like he's Santa Claus. At the very least, freebies and football tickets should have been coordinated thru the front office of The Second Mile where controls could have been in place. Why Dr. Raykovitz allowed an employee and charity figurehead to supersede commonsense rules of working with minors is truly astonishing. <br /><br />There are way too many unanswered questions about The Second Mile and their operations. But of course, this is a "football culture" problem. (sarcasm) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05586018551111572685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-7390721020166098632014-06-08T22:00:03.376-04:002014-06-08T22:00:03.376-04:00Agree Barry. The lack of action with the Second M...Agree Barry. The lack of action with the Second Mile is probably the most mind boggling of all. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01953850608290169163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-59647722070390337372014-06-08T21:54:13.323-04:002014-06-08T21:54:13.323-04:00I never had a doubt about Sandusky's grooming,...I never had a doubt about Sandusky's grooming, fondling, boundary violations, deviate sexual attractions, and molestation. And I'm just as certain that the 2001 McQueary situation did not involve rape - but was grooming. <br />These behaviors should certainly have been recognized by JACK RAYKOVITZ - the professional child psychologist and head of The Second Mile but there is no reason that Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Joe Paterno or Graham Spanier should have known. <br />We are still no closer to any implication and punishment for Raykovitz and his wife who were making serious salaries while failing to protect the children under their protection. Barry Bozemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.com