Upward State's Focus on Future Is Little More Than Sweeping PSU's Problems Under The Rug

Upward State candidate Matt Schulyer's op-ed in the March 28th CDT spins a tale of focusing on PSU's future for the good of the students.  However, the fact is that Upward State is a front group for the Old Guard BOT whose goal is to ensure that PSU's malfeasance never gets exposed.

By
Ray Blehar

Matt Schuyler's op-ed in the Centre Daily Times spins a story about how UpwardState has listened to the students and are looking out for their best interests.  In addition, Schuyler states that UpwardState agree with the alumni on the mishandling of the Sandusky scandal, but disagree with alumni that any effort should be spent on finding out the truth.

In short, the people that the UpwardState slate is really listening to are the "old guard" Board of Trustees, their friends who were former officers of the Penn State Alumni Association, and those who have corporate ties to BOT members (e.g., Ken Frazier).

If Schuyler, McHugh, and Cocco really do possess "seasoned judgment" and "have a strong commitment to transparency," then they would obviously realize that there was a complete lack of transparency by the BOT in dealing with the Sandusky scandal.  The recently released e-mails from PSU reveal that the BOT was doing all that it could to operate under a cloak of secrecy.

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?