Central Mountain High School Probe Not Just About Aaron Fisher

USAToday's report of the AG's probe at CMHS should do more than re-plow old ground

By
Ray Blehar

An e-mail alerted me to the USAToday story that went to press on October 7th regarding the Pennsylvania Attorney General's probe into the actions of Central Mountain High School in the Sandusky case.

As I read the story, it was surprising to find out that CMHS Principal Karen Probst's call to Clinton County Children and Youth Services was to not just alert officials about an incoming complaint about Sandusky, but an attempt to diminish the credibility of Aaron Fisher and his mother, Dawn Hennessy.

This is the first new information in the case since we heard Frank Fina state there was no evidence to support Joe Paterno's role in a cover-up.  However, the probe at CMHS could reveal more new information than the USAToday article reported.

While the article went on to not only detail the foot-dragging by CMHS regarding Fisher's complaint, it also highlighted some of the other well-known unusual activities of Sandusky that the school ignored, including:

-- Sandusky devoted unusual attention to boys at school who were involved with The Second Mile;
-- Sandusky removed children from class to counsel them;
-- Vice-Principal Turchetta retrieved children from school activities to see Sandusky;
-- Truchetta testified Sandusky acted "clingy and needy" when students broke off relationships with Sandusky and that Sandusky's behavior was suspicious.

The stories of the other children at CMHS may likely provide one of the keys to understanding why the investigation took so long.

Most people familiar with the case are aware of one other boy, F.A., who was referenced in the grand jury presentment as being subject to the unwanted non-sexual touching and tickling by Sandusky.  F.A. reportedly stayed at Sandusky's home one time and at the same time as Fisher.

But who were the other boys that Sandusky took out of class and what happened to them?

The Police Investigation

According to public records, the police investigation into Fisher's complaint was first undertaken by Troopers Cavanaugh and Akers in December 2008.  Neither man testified at the trial nor did their names appear as potential witnesses for the prosecution.   Allegedly, they did not identify any victims from CMHS who knew Aaron Fisher.

In February 2009, Cavanaugh and Akers were replaced by Trooper Lear.  Lear did not testify at the trial nor did his name appear on the list of potential witnesses for the prosecution.  Allegedly, Lear did not identify any victims from CMHS who knew Fisher.

In June 2009, Trooper Scott Rossman replaced Lear.  Rossman testified at the trial and was caught making false statements under oath.  Allegedly, like the other officers who interviewed Aaron Fisher, he did not identify any other victims from CMHS who knew Fisher.

One of the reasons that the police failed to identify possible victims is that they relied on Fisher to point out the other children.  According to Fisher's book, Silent No More, the police did not obtain any records from The Second Mile regarding participants in their program until January 2011 - 25 months into the investigation.

But there is more to the story.

According to Mike Gillum, the state trooper who typically investigated sexual abuse incidents was officer Patterson.  Gillum was surprised when Akers and Cavanaugh showed up to interview Fisher and he suspected something was not quite right about their assignment to the case.  While they may be fine law enforcement officers, it is highly likely that they were not trained to recognize the signs of possible sexual abuse and did not recognize that some of Fisher's friends may have been victims.

Inconsistency of Testimony and Peer Pressure

In 1998, there was as group of about six to eight boys who were frequently seen with Sandusky and five of them testified to varying levels of abuse at the trial.  The inconsistency of testimony is easily explained by the research on compliant victim behavior, which states that compliant victims will deny, downplay, or exaggerate the abuse they suffered, often in an attempt to satisfy the investigator's or evaluator's expectations.   More often that not, however, when a group of children have been abused, the offender uses bonding, competition, and peer pressure from within the group to keep the children from disclosing abuse.  To wit:

The offender may use peer pressure to control his victims, and the children will enforce the rules on each other. No victim wants to be the one to ruin it for anyone  else or embarrass others, and each victim may think he or she is the offender’s “favorite.” All these techniques simply capitalize on the developmental needs of children of different ages. 

I suspect, just as in 1998, there appears to have been a similar group of children/minors at CMHS who were in contact with Sandusky in the 2003 to 2008 time frame.  Sandusky became a volunteer assistant football coach at CMHS in 2003, which was a least a year prior to him meeting Aaron Fisher through The Second Mile camp in 2004.  Fisher also testified that he was with Sandusky and a group of boys at the Blanchard Dam and other places.

Missing the Signs of Child Sexual Abuse

This passage from page 73 of the NCMEC & DOJ Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis provides some valuable insights on child molestation that I suspect were not known to the police investigators:


It is easy to be judgmental toward victims when you look at only the end product of their seduction. 
At the beginning of the relationship the child is looking for friendship, emotional support, a job, or just some fun. The lowering of sexual inhibitions is usually done so gradually and skillfully the victim does not realize he or she is a victim until it is too late. It may begin with simple affection such as a pat, hug, or kiss on the cheek.  In addition to being part of the seduction process, such activity can also be sexual acts themselves. Sexual activity can begin with conversation about sex. This might include “dirty” jokes and encouraging children to share their sexual attitudes and feelings. The activity can progress to fondling while wrestling, playing hide-and seek in the dark, playing strip poker, swimming nude in the pool, drying the child with a towel, massaging an injury, giving a back rub, tickling, playing a physical game, or cuddling in bed. Some offenders may have no interest in progressing beyond such acts. They are not a means to an end, but an end in themselves as their preferred sexual activity.


This passage contained many of the behaviors that the victims of Sandusky testified about at the trial and grand jury.  It cannot be understated that those behaviors were mentioned to trained DPW and CYS caseworkers in the 1998 case and were somehow not considered signs of sexual abuse.  It appears those signs may also have missed with F.A. and possibly others in 2008 and 2009 during the initial stages of the investigation.

There is no question that the Kane/Moulton investigation needs to review the records of the police interviews of the CMHS children (if the records still exist) to determine if signs were missed or if there were simply no disclosures from the children involved.

Finally, the investigation needs to determine if any later abuse could have been prevented.

Fisher, Others Not Protected

The November 2011 grand jury presentment reported that Sandusky had called Fisher 61 times from January 2008 to July 2009.   If there were any calls between January 2009 and July 2009, those calls would provide evidence that the Clinton County CYS was not diligent in ensuring that The Second Mile put a plan in place to prohibit Sandusky from having contact with Fisher and other children.

According to the Public Welfare Code, Pa. 055§ 3490.56 (b) and (e), Clinton County CYS should have required the The Second Mile to put a protection plan in place during the investigation and after Sandusky had been indicated.  This plan should have prevented Sandusky's access to all children, not just Aaron Fisher from November 20, 2008 forward.

Given that Sandusky did not retire officially from The Second Mile until September 2010 - nearly two years after he was indicated for abusing Aaron Fisher, this was a clear violation of the Public Welfare Code and also requires follow-up investigation by the Attorney General.

If there were others abused after November 2008, and it appears that was the case with Victim 9, whose dates of abuse on the original Bill of Particulars were 2005 to 2009 and the amended Bill of Particulars confirm that abuse continued into December 2008, then Clinton County CYS and The Second Mile could be charged with endangering the welfare of children.

.

24 Questions About the Sandusky Investigation

Most people probably never made it to the back of Report 3, however it provides a list of questions that the investigation into the Sandusky investigation (conducted by Geoffrey Moulton) needs to answer.

By
Ray Blehar

QUESTION 1:  Did Victim 1, Aaron Fisher, ever associate with Victim 9 during the period from 2005 to 2009? Each young man stated that they had spent hundreds of weekends with Sandusky.

QUESTION 2:  Why wasn’t a deposition taken from BK?  He showered with Sandusky at least twice, which would have added six counts.  Why wasn’t BK brought to trial?  After the presentment was issued, the OAG was still searching for victims and set up a hotline.  Is he among the Victims (11-17) whose cases were not brought to trial?

QUESTION 3:  Who did troopers Cavanaugh, Akers, and Lear interview aside from Fisher?  Did any persons interviewed disclose that they were abused?  Do records/transcripts exist of the interviews?

QUESTION 4:  Is the anonymous e-mail from Stacy Parks Miller in evidence?  What are its contents?  Was an effort made to determine who sent it?  When was the e-mail provided to the OAG?

QUESTION 5:  Schultz informed Baldwin of his files on January 5, 2011.  Did PSU officials (i.e., then-PSU Counsel Cynthia Baldwin) not provide the files to the Attorney General, (disregarding the grand jury subpoena 1179)?

QUESTION 6:  At trial, Petrosky stated that he contacted police after reading the story “about the graduate assistant” in the Centre Daily Times.  Petrosky first talked to police in March 2011, seven months before the story was published.   Did Petrosky really call the police in March or was he contacted during the follow-up to the May subpoena for the OPP employees?

QUESTION 7:  What and/or who was the source of the information about a Sandusky incident in 1998?  The Centre County District Attorney’s office stated that they do not have this file – what happened to it? Was the information about other potential victims from 1998 passed to OAG investigators expeditiously or did the OAG attorneys sit on the information? 

QUESTION 8: How did Sara Ganim obtain the name of the mother of Victim 6?

QUESTION 9:  If the janitors who were subpoenaed worked in “old” Lasch, how is it that they observed an incident in new Lasch?

QUESTION 10:  Could Victims 11 through 17, if they exist, be the victims found by troopers Cavanaugh, Akers, and Lear during the early stages of the investigation?  According to a previously referenced press report, Corporal Leiter told the Mother of Victim 6 that they had Sandusky on 400 counts (in December 2010).  Could the counts be attributed to Victims 11 through 17, who may have been the minors identified by Aaron Fisher?

QUESTION 11: When were accusers 11 through 17 identified and interviewed?

QUESTION 12: Who was Ganim’s source for the contact information for the mother of Victim 6?

QUESTION 13:  Did Gillum pass the information from the phone calls he received from other alleged victims on to OAG investigators?

QUESTION 14:  What are the correct time frames of the crimes?

QUESTION 15:  Did the prosecution request that Sassano fabricate the story about setting the date of the 2001 incident (by using TV Guides)?

QUESTION 16:  Did the prosecution request that Sassano testify to the false information regarding finding leads about Victims 7, 9, and 10? 

QUESTION 17:  Does Sassano have an expense report for reimbursement of purchase of the TV Guides?  Back issues of TV Guide are not inexpensive.  Most run about $5 per issue, but some back issues for Feb/March 2001 and 2001 cost as much as $18.95.  Total cost for the TV guides is estimated at $130.00 USD.

QUESTION 18:  Should Sassano be charged with perjury regarding his statement about the camper list leading the police and OAG to find Victim 7?

QUESTION 19:  Should Sassano be charged with perjury regarding his statement about the camper list leading the police and OAG to find Victim 10?

                                                                                                            

QUESTION 20:  Did the prosecutors ignore the inconsistencies in the testimonies of Petrosky in order to prosecute the Victim 8 crimes?

QUESTION 21:  Should Ronald Petrosky face perjury charges for the statements he made under oath regarding Calhoun’s employment status with PSU?

QUESTION 22:  Why didn’t Jay Witherite, the second janitor, testify at the trial?

QUESTION 23:  Did PSU leverage Jay Witherite to testify in the Victim 8 incident by threatening to terminate the employment of family members or was he (and/or his family)  provided with  financial incentives to testify? 

QUESTION 24:  The failure of the defense to submit a media guide or other documentation into evidence as a means to obtain judicial notice that November 18^th was the end of the 2000 season seems to be grossly incompetent.  Joe Amendola is not an incompetent attorney, therefore, was there some other motivation behind Amendola’s lapse in competency during this trial?

Multi-Media: Ray Blehar breaks down Nov 2011 grand jury presentment

Ray Blehar breaks down the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment at Franco's Town Hall held in Pittsburgh on Saturday, November 10, 2012. 

This event was covered by local media, including the Centre Daily Times and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 

Matt Morgan, of the CDT, wrote that my presentation focused on Victim 8, which was the first presentation I made that day.  Bill Schnacke, of the PPG, more correctly stated that my presentation focused on the state and local agencies failures in 1998.  Neither paper mentioned the chronology of the crimes or the fact that the OAG masked the associations of the victims. 

Special thanks to Linda Berkland for creating this video:

Franco's Town Hall, Eileen Morgan, Ray Blehar, and Panel Discussion video (1 hr. 56 mins).

Whatever happened with the investigation of the grand jury leaks?

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office couldn't explain how the Sandusky charges appeared on the judicial system web-site.  They promised an investigation.  We still don't know what happened.

By
Ray Blehar

The butler did it.

On November 4, 2011, the Sandusky court docket somehow found its way onto the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System website.  It was apparently removed - at least temporarily - while the AG hustled to put Sandusky in shackles and get him away from children.....after a three year long investigation.

Here's Nils Frederickson:

Nils Frederickson

"The moment we had a grand jury presentment in hand, we began making arrangements to take the suspect into custody," Frederiksen said. "Given the serious nature of this offense it was the direction of the Attorney General that he be taken into custody as soon as possible and not comment on the matter until he was physically in custody."

And while the cops went to round up Sandusky, Nils hovered over his computer, banging out the press release that would establish the narrative for the Sandusky scandal. The presentment was linked in the press release.

While Frederiksen never answered how or why the docket was posted early, by Friday night the presentment was available on the AG's web-site.

Even if they hadn't linked the presentment (or if it was kept under seal) Frederickson's false account was being run across the newswires.  Some of the more fictional parts follow.

Central Mountain High School

Frederickson wrote all about how the folks at Central Mountain High School immediately jumped to action upon the second, third, or whatever number report it was of Sandusky's bizarre behavior with students at the school.  

"The quick action by high school staff members in Clinton County in response to reports of a possible sexual assault by Sandusky is in marked contrast to the reaction of top officials at Penn State University, who had actually received a first-hand report of a sexual attack by Sandusky seven years earlier."

Incident in wrestling room - no report.  Taking kids out of classes - no report.  Shouting matches with students - no report.  But when a mother visited the school after her son's breakdown, the officials were Johnny on the spot.  No, not really.

We now know that the Principal, Karen Probst, and Vice-Principal, Steven Turchetta were anything but quick to react and had to be told to ban Sandusky from the school by Mike Gillum.  Gillum was the psychologist who worked for Clinton County CYS who got Aaron Fisher to admit the details of Sandusky's crimes against him.

We also know that Probst called Clinton County CYS after Dawn Daniels, the mother of the victim, told her that she was going directly to CYS -- and wasn't going home to think it over (as Probst urged her to do).   Gillum called Probst's phone call a CYA move.

And when ABC's Chris Cuomo showed up at CMHS with a camera and microphone in hand, we saw just how much Probst and Turchetta wanted to talk about their heroic acts.

McQueary's Report

According to Frederickson's press release, Linda Kelly stated,

 "Despite a powerful eyewitness statement about the sexual assault of a child, this incident was not reported to any law enforcement or child protective agency, as required by Pennsylvania law," Kelly said. "Additionally, there is no indication that anyone from the university ever attempted to learn the identity of the child who was sexually assaulted on their campus or made any follow-up effort to obtain more information from the person who witnessed the attack first-hand."

Powerful alright.  So powerful that McQueary could barely get the words out to Paterno and similarly provided few details to Gary Schultz and Tim Curley.  None of the men recalled McQueary describing the event as a sexual assault, let alone an act of anal intercourse (as written in the presentment).  

So powerful that McQueary was unable to tell his father or Dr. Dranov what he had seen.

So powerful that McQueary changed his story about what he saw inside of two weeks of the presentment being published.

Powerful.

The Three Year Investigation

The coup de gras arrives when Frederickson describes the investigative skills of the Pennsylvania State Police and Office of Attorney General.   This is a real gem:

"Kelly said that despite the false testimony and "uncooperative atmosphere" encompassing some Penn State University and Second Mile officials, investigators from the Attorney General's Office and State Police gradually uncovered a pattern of other potential sexual assaults by Sandusky. 

The grand jury eventually identified a total of eight young men who were the targets of similar sexual advances or assaults by Sandusky, starting in 1994 and continuing through 2009.  All of the victims first encountered Sandusky through Second Mile activities."

Wow.

The police eventually pieced together a pattern that the founder of The Second Mile, who had unfettered access to children, was using The Second Mile to find his victims.

I guess we should erect a statue of Inspector Clouseau in the PA Attorney General's office to honor these police and investigators for their exceptional performance.

The 1998 Investigation

Here is Frederickson's error riddled account of  the 1998 investigation:

During testimony before the grand jury, Schultz acknowledged that he was aware of a 1998 University Police investigation that also involved allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior involving Sandusky and young boys in the football showers, but did not pursue the matter further and did not seek any additional review in light of the new report in 2002.

The grand jury also noted that the 1998 report involving Sandusky and boys in the showers was reviewed by University Police and Child Protective Services, with the blessing of Wendell Courtney, who at the time served as University Counsel and was (and remains) counsel to The Second Mile - though no criminal charges were ever pursued. 

Schultz testified that he vaguely remembered the 1998 case as a matter of inappropriate conduct that was alleged by a mother of a young boy.  However, where is Frederickson coming from with Schultz asking for another review of the 1998 case?  And Frederickson definitely got it wrong about Courtney - on two counts.  1) Courtney was never told about the 1998 case until 2011; and 2) Courtney was not representing The Second Mile in 1998.

Conclusion

It's clear that the Attorney General's Office, with Frederickson as its acting director of communications, wrote the script for the false narrative and everyone else in the media promoted it.

By the time the horrific story had made the papers, all of the reporters were sucked in and never followed up on the reason how the charges were "leaked" in the first place.

Nor did they consider alternative scenarios for a cover-up of Sandusky's crimes.

This is the state of mainstream journalism in America.

And explains why more and more people have turned to the internet and the blogosphere to find the best information.

Why Victim 6 should have been Victim 2

After Victim 1, the grand jury presentment appears to haphazardly number the victims.  If placed in the chronology of when they were discovered by investigators, Victim 6 would be Victim 2.

by
Eileen Morgan and Ray Blehar

In November of 2008, Aaron Fisher (known as ‘Victim 1’) came forth and reported that Jerry Sandusky had been sexually assaulting him for years.  He is known as Victim 1 because he was the first victim to come forward at the time.  In March 2009, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) launched an investigation into Sandusky’s alleged criminal activity.  The OAG numbered the victims in order as they ‘discovered’ new victims.  As reported previously on this blog, the investigators did not actually find any of the victims.  The victims were either self-reported (Victims 1, 9, 10), were reported (victims 3,4,5,7) by the mother of Victim 6 (1998 shower incident), or were hearsay victims not yet identified (Victims 2, 8). 

In December 2010, the OAG discovered the 2001 incident witnessed by Mike McQueary and labeled that victim, ‘Victim 2.’  However, when you look at the timeline of events, in June 2009, the OAG discovered the 1998 investigation.  If the OAG learned of the 1998 investigation in June 2009, why was that victim not labeled ‘Victim 2’? This child was the second victim the OAG learned about, eighteen months before learning about the incident that McQueary witnessed.  In addition, if the OAG was doing its job, then why didn’t the OAG talk with the victim’s mother, who had reported it in 1998?  She would have been able to identify four more victims.  She did eventually do this, but not because the police contacted her in 2009.  No, she contacted the police in December 2010, EIGHTEEN months after the OAG learned of the 1998 investigation.  

In fact, it was only after Victim 6’s mother came forth in December 2010, that the state police apparently pulled the 1998 University Park police report.  Why did the OAG wait 1.5 years to obtain the police report from 1998?  This is a child sexual abuse investigation and should have had the utmost importance to protect the children.  The OAG should have left no stone unturned.  Or did the OAG purposely conceal its knowledge of the 1998 report for 1.5 years?

It appears the OAG misnumbered the victims to make it appear that five children (Victims 3,4,5,6,7) were victimized after Victim 2 in the football shower room or on campus.  Reviewing the presentment of victims 1-8, the reader psychologically believes the victims are listed in chronological order of when the abuse by Sandusky occurred.  However, this is far from the truth.  Apparently this is just another deceiving tactic by the OAG to pin the blame on PSU officials.  

The OAG used the 2001 account to show the ‘failings’ of PSU officials.  These tactics subconsciously persuaded the media and public that the blame for Victims 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 rested squarely on the PSU officials.  

If you read into the victims’ testimonies in the presentment, we know all these victims (3,4,5,6,7,8) were assaulted before 2001, before Victim 2.  But more importantly, if the OAG would have done its job, they would have identified FIVE more victims in June 2009 and would have had enough victims to file charges against Sandusky.  Note that in June 2009, Tom Corbett was the Attorney General -- he was not sworn in as governor until January 2011.  His admonitions that he couldn't have charged and gone to trial rings hollow in light of the facts.

The often alleged claims that Corbett was gearing up for his gubernatorial campaign and didn't want to risk upsetting the large contingent of PSU alums and supporters is now looking more like the truth rather than just allegations.  

The 2011 Grand Jury Presentment using alphabetical identifiers for each victim

•Victim 1, AF – Reported abuse by Sandusky

•Victim 2, U1 - Child rape was witnessed by grad assistant in 2001 in a PSU shower
•Victim 3, JS  - Abused in PSU showers/facilities by Sandusky (Identified by mother of Victim 6)
•Victim 4, BH - Abused in PSU showers/facilities by Sandusky (Identified by mother of Victim 6)
•Victim 5, MK - Abused in PSU showers/facilities by Sandusky (Identified by mother of Victim 6)
•Victim 6, ZK – Reported by mother in 1998 - Abused in PSU showers/facilities by Sandusky
•Victim 7, DS - Abused in PSU showers/facilities by Sandusky (Identified by mother of Victim 6)
•Victim 8, U2 – Not known, Identified by hearsay witness (Janitor) – Reported abuse in a PSU shower by Sandusky

Victim 6 above was reported by his mother who then identified Victims 3,4,5, and 7, however Victim 6 is placed near the end of the Victims.  It is also notable that the grand jury presentment downplayed the roles of CYS and DPW in the 1998 (Victim 6) investigation, instead focusing on the University Park Police and then-DA Ray Gricar as the parties responsible for not "indicating" abuse.

The Revised Timeline For Identifying Sandusky's Victims

• Nov. 2008, Victim 1, AF – Reported abuse from 2005-2008 by Sandusky

• June 2009, Victim 2, ZK - Reported by mother in 1998 - Reported abuse in PSU showers/facilities by Sandusky (acquittal on indecent assault)

• June 2009, Victim 3 BK – 2^nd child in 1998 investigation. Reported abuse in PSU showers/facilities by Sandusky.  Never brought to trial.
• June 2009, Victim 4, JS – Identified by ‘Victim 2’ mother – Reported abuse in Sandusky home, on trips, and at PSU
• June 2009, Victim 5, BH – Identified by ‘Victim 2’ mother – Reported abuse in Sandusky home, on trips, and at PSU
• June 2009, Victim 6. JK – Identified by ‘Victim 2’ mother – Reported abuse in PSU shower by Sandusky
• June 2009, Victim 7, DS – Identified by ‘Victim 2’ mother – Reported abuse in PSU pool
• Nov. 2010, Victim 8, U1 - Child rape was witnessed by grad assistant in 2001 in a PSU shower
• March 2011, Victim 9, U2. Identified by hearsay witness (Janitor) – Reported abuse in a PSU shower by Sandusky

As you can see above, the 2001 incident that McQueary witnessed was the second to the last victim account known to the OAG.  If GJ would have written the presentment with the victims in the order the OAG became aware of them then the 2001 shower incident would have been labeled as Victim 8 and would not have had the same impact on perceptions of PSU being at fault for enabling Sandusky's crimes.


Jerry Sandusky was free for THREE years following the first reported abuse by Aaron Fisher in November 2008.  By June 2009, the OAG learned of the 1998 investigation which would have produced SIX more victims.  It appears the OAG dragged its feet until learning of the Mike McQueary eye witness incident in November 2010.  Furthermore, the 30th grand jury that heard McQueary's testimony was dismissed in January 2011, thus the statement that the 33rd grand jury found McQueary to be a "an extremely credible witness" is not supported by the timeline.

The "Psychology" of the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment

Let’s look closely at the Grand Jury Presentment (GJP).  The GJP was drafted in such a way that it psychologically steered the reader into a conclusion that the PSU officials must have looked the other way when McQueary reported his account to them and that they must have been complicit with Sandusky’s crimes.  What many people don’t know is that a GJP is drafted solely by the prosecution and uses only what the prosecution deems necessary to get an indictment.  The witnesses are only examined by the prosecution and there is no cross examination. 

The following accounts demonstrate how the Grand Jury Presentment (GJP) presented the information in a biased fashion to shift the blame toward the PSU officials and relieve the state investigators, Central Mountain HS officials, CYS, and DPW of responsibility for bringing Sandusky to justice sooner.  

Victim 1(AF):

The GJP claimed that the school officials at Central Mountain High executed perfectly regarding Victim 1’s (Aaron Fisher) report of abuse by Sandusky.  The GJP states that when Aaron and his mother reported the abuse to the school, ‘Sandusky was barred from the school district from that day forward and the matter was reported to authorities as mandated by law.’  That is anything but what actually happened.  The school officials actually told Aaron and his mother to ‘go home and think about it’ and that ‘Jerry has a heart of gold and would never do that.’   The school did not believe Aaron’s account and did not report the abuse until they learned that Aaron and his mother were going to Child and Youth Services (CYS).   In addition, the GJP front-loaded the discussion of abuse early in the presentation, then spent the latter part explaining how difficult it was for investigators to identify additional victims.

Victim 2 (U1):

As much as the GJP falsely claimed the Central Mountain High officials followed the law to a T, the GJP unjustly incited the public and alleged that PSU officials did not follow the law regarding Victim 2. First, we know they had the day, the month and the year wrong of the incident.  We also know that Mike McQueary did not see Victim 2 being subjected to "anal intercourse" by Sandusky because in the Curley/Schultz Hearing and Sandusky Trial, McQueary testifies under oath that he did not see a sexual assault, he did not see Sandusky’s hands fondling the boy’s genitals, he did not see an erection nor penetration.  The presentment regarding Victim 2 is full of lies.  However, once this information was disseminated, regardless of its validity, the world had already concluded that the PSU Officials were complicit and were as much to blame as Sandusky himself.  The Grand Jury, that did not hear their testimony, also concluded that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were not credible witnesses.  Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney recall that CYS was informed but the GJ found no reported file for 2002.  Well, the year was wrong for one thing.  In addition, CYS expunges its records if there is ‘no finding.’  Therefore, there would be no record.  Although the GJ never heard from Victim 2, this account was 6.5 pages long.  The average account of Victims 1-8 were 2.5 pages long. 

Victim 3 (JS):

The GJP mentions first and emphasizes the shower assaults versus the assaults at Sandusky’s home.   This feeds into the narrative that the PSU Officials were to blame because incidents continued in the football showers. What the GJP does not disclose is that most of the assaults to Victim 3 (and the first assault) happened on school nights at Sandusky’s home.  The GJP never mentions that Sandusky took Victim 3 on overnight trips to Latrobe, Pennsylvania, and Syracuse, New York. 

When approached by police in July 2011, Victim 3 said nothing inappropriate happened.  Within a month, on August 18, 2011, Victim 3 changed his story and said Sandusky molested him. The GJP fails to disclose that Victim 3 became very upset and heart broken when he was taken away from the Second Mile and put into foster care.  He kept waiting for Jerry to call or come get him and bring him back to the State College area.  He was very confused that Sandusky never reached out to him.  In July 2011, the investigators for the OAG contacted Victim 3 and Victim 3 said nothing inappropriate had happened.  In August 2011, Victim 3 recanted and said Sandusky abused him.

Victim 4 (BH):

The GJP begins with ‘Victim 4 was repeatedly subjected to Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse and Indecent Assault at the hands of Sandusky.’  The GJP never uses the word ‘alleged’ and these accusations had not yet been proven in a court of law.  Within the first two sentences, the GJP mentions that the abuse took place on ‘Penn State University Park campus, in the football buildings.’  This again set the narrative that PSU officials were responsible.  However, not until page 2 of this incident does it mention that the first assault actually occurred at Toftrees Resort.  In fact, the first assault and most of the assaults occurred at the hotel or Sandusky’s home and began in ’96 or ’97.  The first shower incident didn’t occur until ’97.  Victim 4 said that he was teased a lot in school by the kids because he was hanging out with Sandusky.  The kids teased him saying that Sandusky was molesting him and that he was Sandusky’s ‘butt buddy.’  Victim 4 said the kids were ‘just jealous and that they would have switched places in a heartbeat’ to get to hang out with Jerry.  Victim 4 did not tell the OAG investigators the first time he spoke to them that Sandusky abused him.

Victim 5 (MK):

Sandusky was acquitted of indecent assault of Victim 5, who claimed that Sandusky forced him to touch his penis.  However, it is interesting that Victim 5 claimed he met Sandusky in 1995 or 1996 and showered with him sometime between 1996 and 1998 - at ages 8 to 10.   At trial, Victim 5 changed the date of his alleged assault to 2001, which does not fit the previous/established pattern of abuse, in which Sandusky would identify a potential child in the first year of camp, then make contact in the second year.  In this case, Sandusky waited six or seven years, when Victim 5 was 13 to begin grooming him.  Given what is known about pedophile behavior, children are groomed at an earlier age when they are unsure about what is appropriate sexual activity.  The change of the year to 2001 is suspicious to say the least.

Victim 6 (ZK):

This victim was the 1998 victim who reported a shower incident to police which led the local police, UP police, CYS, DPW, and DA to investigate but found no wrong doing by Sandusky.  What the GJP does not mention is that in 1998, a licensed psychologist, Dr. Chambers, determined Sandusky to be ‘exhibiting grooming behaviors’ and was a ‘likely pedophile.’  The GJP also fails to mention that after the 1998 investigation, Victim 6 continued to see Sandusky on a regular basis.  Victim 6 continued to go over to Sandusky’s house to visit and eat and Victim 6 would be picked up and dropped off at his house by Sandusky, all with the mother’s approval.  Around 2009 Sandusky gave Victim 6 money to go on a mission trip. In 2009, Victim 6 texted messages to Sandusky on Father’s Day and Thanksgiving, thanking him for being a great friend and that he was blessed because Sandusky was in his life.  In 2010, Victim 6 borrowed Sandusky’s car for the weekend.  In January 2011, the OAG investigators contacted Victim 6, but Victim 6 did not accuse Sandusky of any wrongdoing.  In the spring 2011, Victim 6 and Sandusky had lunch.  It was not until June, 2011 that Victim 6 told the GJ that Sandusky abused him.  The friendship that Victim 6 maintained with Sandusky for 13 years after the 1998 investigation was completely omitted in the GJP.

Victim 7 (DS):

Victim 7 started going to all the home football games in ’95 until 2009 and most of the assaults occurred at Sandusky’s house.  Victim 7 refers to having a ‘blurry memory’ about a shower incident that occurred at the end of ’95.  Around ’97, Sandusky stopped calling Victim 7, which made Victim 7 very upset.  Jerry did eventually continue to have contact with Victim 7, getting him tickets for home games for years.  Victim also would go to tailgates prior to the games and Sandusky would drive him.  In February 2011, the OAG investigators contacted Victim 7, but Victim 7 said there was no inappropriate behavior by Sandusky.  In April 2011, Victim 7 told the GJ there was inappropriate behavior.

Victim 8 (U2):

This is a hearsay account by a janitor at the football locker room.  This account is highly questionable based on the timelines of news reports and the physical evidence.  However, in terms of psychological affects on readers of the grand jury presentment, it is the coup de grace.   A horrific crime committed in front of a janitor, who now suffers from dimentia (and will be viewed sympathetically) and can't testify, who allegedly stated what he witnessed was worse than anything he saw in the Korean War.   To add the icing on the cake, the OAG writes that the janitors didn't report it because they feared they would lose their jobs.  

After reading the accounts written in the grand jury presentment, the public had little choice but to be outraged at Penn State officials and have little or no understanding of how the child protection system and the police/OAG investigators totally missed on bringing Sandusky to justice at an earlier point in time.  

This narrative continued through Sandusky's trial and was also set forth in the Freeh Report.

No doubt, Sandusky's crimes were horrific, but they weren't the only crimes committed during the investigation and prosecution of Sandusky.

Kathleen Kane's investigation will undoubtedly reveal the other crimes.  The evidence is overwhelming.

What's Really At Stake In Tom Corbett's NCAA Lawsuit

Tom Corbett cites the economic costs of the NCAA sanctions as the reason for his anti-trust lawsuit and conveniently forgets the greater cost paid every day by the children of Pennsylvania.

By
Ray Blehar

Governor Tom Corbett has created a controversy among Penn State alumni, friends, and fans over the Commonwealth's lawsuit against the NCAA.   While many do not favor the governor politically or personally, they are willing to saddle up with him for what is "the only game in town" for fighting the NCAA.

What could be more unjust than the sanctions levied on Penn State?

THIS:  Since the time that Mike McQueary witnessed that incident in the showers in 2001, over 400 children have been murdered in child abuse incidents in the Commonwealth. The numbers are actually higher because some of the deaths are included in other crime statistics.

The record is atrocious and there's no plan to change things.

The sad reality is that children don't vote.  They don't have money.

Therefore, they are of little use to the governor and he's willing to take a pass on protecting them in an attempt to win favor with the voters of Pennsylvania -- who have both.

A report from the PA Task Force on Child Protection, recommending needed changes to the system sits on the Governor's desk.  It's been there since November 27th.

He's held no press conference to announce the recommendations that he's chosen to implement.

He hasn't invited abused children or the surviving family members of the children who were murdered to his mansion for dinner.

DPW and CYS's Track Record of Failure

In the wake of the Sandusky Scandal, the state government convened a task force to decide what improvements should be made for protecting children.  Don't you love it when legislators react to the latest news du jour, instead of actually being ahead of things and preventing the next crisis?

The task force went about their business holding hearings through the summer and fall about child abuse.  Many people testified.

At one end of the spectrum was Mike Gillum, the psychologist who worked with Aaron Fisher, and helped bring Sandusky to justice.

At the other end was The Honorable Beverly D. Mackereth, Deputy Secretary, Office of Children,Youth, and Families at the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.  Most people have no idea who this nameless, faceless bureaucrat is -- but I do.

Ms. Mackereth, as a caseworker in York County in 1982,  was instructed by doctors not to allow little Aleta Bailey, who had been severely beaten by her mother's boyfriend, to be returned to her home and be a subject of future abuse by the boyfriend.  Against the orders,  Mackereth returned the child to the home and within one month, Aleta was beaten to death.

Anyone who has read this blog knows that the DPW and CYS reacted similarly to a recommendation from Dr. Alycia Chambers, who concluded Sandusky was exhibiting grooming behaviors typical of a pedophile.  Like Mackereth, DPW and CYS ignored the Chambers report and stopped investigating Sandusky, letting him roam free to prey on children for 14 years.

If you've followed the news and the Sandusky trial closely, you might know that Clinton County CYS did not require the Second Mile to institute a "safety plan" after Sandusky was "indicated" as a child abuser in 2009.  And if you've really followed things closely, you'd know that Sandusky was likely abusing Victim 9 while the investigation was in its beginning stages.

It is long past time for much needed reforms at CYS and DPW and I think that we, as Penn Staters, should be asking the Governor to put as much emphasis on protecting children as he is on fighting the NCAA.

Are We Who We Say WE ARE?

I never met Joe Paterno, but Joe was and is a great inspiration to me.

I knew about Joe for a long time, growing up in Central Pennsylvania in the 1970's it was hard not to know about him.  But I didn't learn who Joe was until I read Paterno By The Book.  Then I got to understand the depth of Joe Paterno, what he stood for and what he believed in.

There are many quotes of Joe's which are timeless, but at the moment, one quote stands out:

"There's more things in life that are more important than a football game."

I know from reading his books -- and I've read many of them -- and from looking at history, that Joe preached academics and family were ahead of football.   The graduation rates and academic success of Penn State football players was and continues to be magnificent.

It was the Grand Experiment.  Top flight football played by athletes who excelled in the classroom.  What was a small agricultural college, when Joe arrived, transformed into a world class institution.

The time is now that we demand that Governor Corbett takes steps in taking Pennsylvania toward world-class levels of child protection.

This is not an either or decision.  We can do both.

As Joe used to say,

"Let's show them who we are!"