Kathleen Kane and the Corbett Investigation: WHY PSU and NO TSM?

by Barry Bozeman 

This week's news suggests that Kathleen Kane's investigation of Tom Corbett's handling of the Sandusky Investigation will not end with anything like an indictment. In fact Penn Live is reporting: 

Sources say report finds no evidence Corbett delayed Sandusky investigation

A report commissioned by Attorney General Kathleen Kane found that no evidence indicates then-Attorney General Tom Corbett delayed the investigation into convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, but it questions the case's pacing. 

Attorney General Kathleen Kane rode into office, cresting the wave of that ire and promising to investigate Corbett for allegedly "slow-walking" the original investigation of Jerry Sandusky for sex crimes against children in order to make sure he was securely in the governor's mansion before the charges dropped. 

Now, Kane says she is ready to release the report of that investigation, and multiple sources — citing people who've read it in advance — are reporting that it exonerates Corbett.

Corbett: Has Read Sandusky Report, Won’t Comment

Waiting until it is released publicly. BY JOEL MATHIS  |  JUNE 11, 2014

Gov. Tom Corbett has read AG Kathleen Kane’s report on his handling of the Sandusky case while he was the state’s top prosecutor, but won’t comment until it’s released publicly.
Sources say the report largely absolves Corbett of dragging his feet on the case, although it suggests prosecutors could have searched Sandusky’s home sooner in the investigative process.

No kidding - the accusation of one victim would have been quite enough to merit a search warrant.  And if all this is true it is very disappointing because is appears that the report does not address the most baffling thing about Corbett's investigation. 

The failure to investigate The Second Mile. 

SMSS has long wondered along with others why Doctor Jack Raykovitz - the professional child psychologist who worked closely with Jerry Sandusky - was not charged with "failure to report". It was Raykovitz who was informed by Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley that an assistant football coach (Mike McQueary) was made to feel uncomfortable when he saw Sandusky taking a shower with a boy after 9pm in February of 2001. Sandusky was an employee of The Second Mile, not Penn State; and the children who Sandusky was eventually charged with molesting were Second Mile boys. A Doctor of Child Psychology should have a much better handle on grooming behavior and how to evaluate a child in possible trouble than an Athletic Director or Penn State's VP for Business.  

The Second Mile was responsible for those boys and for Sandusky, since he was paid by the charity. Raykovitz was the professional who would have been trained to recognize grooming behavior. When Kane first announced her investigation The Second Mile was on her mind at least because of the campaign contributions from TSM to Corbett:

Investigation to Focus on Governor’s Handling of Penn State Abuse Case

Ms. Kane, 46, is a former county prosecutor who specialized in child sex abuse cases. She questioned why it took 33 months to arrest Mr. Sandusky in late 2011 after Mr. Corbett, as attorney general, received a complaint against Mr. Sandusky in the spring of 2009.“It’s never taken me that long” to build a case against a molester, Ms. Kane said in the Harrisburg office she had just moved into, a Carpe Diem paperweight on her desk, adding that speed matters because child abusers seek new victims. “I was on the campaign trail almost two years; I didn’t go a single place without somebody asking me why it took so long.” 

She also questioned the influence of campaign donations Mr. Corbett received from a charity Mr. Sandusky founded, the Second Mile, whose board members contributed to Mr. Corbett’s run for governor. Investigators at the time suspected Mr. Sandusky of using the foundation, which helped troubled youth, to find victims. Mr. Corbett’s spokesman said he could not have returned the Second Mile contributions because at the time the case was before the grand jury and he was sworn to secrecy. 

Ms. Kane also questioned whether Mr. Corbett devoted enough staff to the investigation and whether agents were trained to pursue child abusers.

We have not yet seen the actual Kane report, but if sources are correct and the report does not fault Corbett for failure to look into TSM it will be a major disappointment.  

It is difficult to understand how Dr. Jack Raykovitz escaped this situation unscathed while Penn State has been so thoroughly damaged. Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz had duties that did not include responsibility for The Second Mile charity beneficiaries. It appears that no good deed went unpunished since they thought they were benefiting the charity by providing facilities for certain events, and believed they were doing the right thing when they informed The Second Mile director of McQueary's unease when he observed Sandusky with a boy at the Lasch facility. It seems quite reasonable for them to believe Raykovitz would be the best person to handle the problem since he would know if the boy was under Sandusky's care. Raykovitz was in the obvious position to evaluate Sandusky's behavior and to know how to find out if the boy needed psychological help. 

But the child psychologist who was a mandated reporter was never seriously confronted or charged concerning his behavior toward Sandusky or his responsibility to protect the children. . The Freeh "investigation" never touched The Second Mile. A football coach was fired and disgraced and the President, Athletic Director, and Vice-President of a major University with no training in the field were indicted. Now it appears that the role of Raykovitz and The Second Mile will never be explored.  

At the heart of Kane v. Corbett, prosecutorial discretion -- a former AG weighs in 

McQueary, Cohen noted, is a 6-foot-4, 240 pound, former Division 1 quarterback who was serving as a graduate assistant to Joe Paterno's football team who testified that he witnessed Sandusky assaulting a young boy in the Penn State showers.

"He comes upon the scene in the locker room with Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy, and what does he do? He walks out, goes home and asks his father what he should do. He doesn't go grab Sandusky off this kid. Why? His defense has been that Sandusky was an icon. He was a legend," Cohen said. 

"Even McQueary, who could have torn Sandusky limb for limb, walks out to avoid dealing with Sandusky because he's an icon."
Cohen said, "Tom Corbett has said something similar. He said you can't take one 10-year-old kid and try to put an icon in prison for life. You need to build a case."

Tom Corbett said he couldn't build a case on an icon based on one crime. Does that mean any icon can get away with one in Tom Corbett's OAG? Odd reasoning I think. But one icon named Joe Paterno saw his reputation destroyed without any crime or case. That pretty much proves Cohen and Corbett wrong. Penn State is also an icon and Corbett & Kelly managed to do great damage to Penn State's reputation by charging three iconic Penn State leaders on the flimsy ever changing statements of Mike McQueary. 

Once again we see the record distorted on what McQueary says he saw and what he said to the people he told. There is no logical reason Tim Curley would not have told Jack Raykovitz what he understood from McQueary's account. Corbett got away with making this case about Penn State instead of his campaign contributors at The Second Mile. 

The night Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky in the showers with "victim 2" he told his father and Dr. Dranov about the incident. Dr. Dranov claims Mike would only mention the 3 slaps he heard when asked if he had witnessed an assault. Mike eventually told some version of the event to 5 people - and one (Tim Curley) informed jack Raykovitz. But Corbett & Kelly's grand juries chose to write a Presentment that claimed Mike told Tim Curley and Gary Schultz he had witnessed a rape. The Sandusky trial jury didn't believe that. Tim and Gary don't believe that. And Dr Dranov says Mike only referred to 3 slap sounds when asked what he saw. 

In terms of culpability for failure to report the list should be ranked like this:

1) Mike McQueary - The man the Kelly/Corbett Presentment claims saw a rape 
2) Mike's father - the man best able to evaluate the veracity of Mike's rape claim  
3) Dr. Dranov -medical professional & close friend who heard the claim that night. 
4) Dr Raykovitz - Director of TSM responsible for the kids and Sandusky's boss who is also a professional child psychologist. 

If those 4 individuals are not culpable for failure to report how can Graham, Tim, and Gary be culpable? They did not know Mike and had no way to measure his veracity or read into his words or demeanor anything more than his evidently muddled story of 3 slaps and 2 second glances in a 10 min meeting 10 days following the incident. 

So why were Tom Corbett & Linda Kelly so bent on implicating Penn State and leaving The Second Mile out of it?  Raykovitz knew everything that Joe, Tim and Gary knew; and he was the professional who paid Sandsky's salary and worked with those kids. I don't get it.  

Why isn't anyone in the media interested in these questions? 

There is something very wrong about that, and the question still exists:

What did those campaign contributions from The Second Mile do to influence Corbett not to pursue Raykovitz and The Second Mile? 

VOTE AS IF THE REPUTATION OF YOUR ALMA MATER DEPENDS ON IT. IT DOES.

The upcoming election for Governor offers the opportunity to get the media to focus on the Truth because the Truth clearly shows Tom Corbett damaged Penn State university without regard for the Truth.  Popularly elected Alumni Trustees will have the power to make the Truth known so vote for the Trustee candidates who are willing to fight for the Truth.  

by Barry Bozeman

May 8, 2013 will mark the end of this year's Board of Trustees election. The turnout as of April 24 is just under 19,000 votes lagging behind 2012 and 2013 by 20 to 25%. As we have attempted to explain in several posts here on SMSS, the makeup of the BoT runs counter to the interests of Penn State University:

In our view, Tom Corbett and those who are beholden to him, are in clear breach of their fiduciary duty to Penn State due to clear and compelling conflicts of interest. Their violations should constitute grounds for removal from the Board of Trustees. Corbett's desire to gut Commonwealth funding for Penn State is just one obvious example of his personal conflict with what is in the best interest of Penn State. His handling of the attack on Penn State and his part in the firing of Joe Paterno and the termination and indictment of Graham Spanier is even more obvious and repellent. We support a strong group of Trustees who will fight Corbett and bring these breaches of fiduciary duty to light in this election year. How can a Trustee bound by law to do what is in the best interest of Penn State be the architect of these attacks on Penn State and remain on the Board of Trustees ? 


Tom Corbett vs Graham Spanier - THE PENN STATE CULTURE

by Barry Bozeman
FOR THE FUTURE - we must recognize the past. 

The announcement yesterday of the great achievement of the FOR THE FUTURE campaign reminds us of when that campaign began back in April of 2010.

Penn State sets $2 billion goal for campaign to help students

April 23, 2010  University Park, Pa. – President Graham Spanier announced that Penn State will aim to secure $2 billion by 2014 to ensure that the University can continue to offer an outstanding education to students from every economic background while benefiting the public through research and service.

 Penn State raises more than $2 billion in For the Future campaign

April 12, 2014 -- Penn State doubled the amount collected in its last 7 year drive, became one of only 12 public universities in the country to exceed $2 billion in a fundraising campaign, and convinced more alumni to donate along the way than in any other campaign in the nation.

Graham Spanier's 16 year tenure as Penn State University just keeps on giving. We have to wonder why it had to stop. A brief history lesson that should be known to all Penn Staters. 

CORBETT, SURMA, FRAZIER, TOMALIS & BALDWIN - UNCOMMONLY CLEAR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST PART 1 A

Eight days after the Nov 9, 2011 firing of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, Corbett, Frazier, Surma, Garban, and Balwin had Louis Freeh in place as the "INDEPENDENT" executioner for Penn State demanding complete collusion with Attorney General of Pennsylvania Linda Kelly.  

"The hiring of Louis Freeh is synonymous with an institution paying $8.2 million to concoct evidence supporting its own guilt and liability. Why would any institution in its right mind fund such an effort? It's insanity, clearly demonstrating the conflicted interests that are the point of this article. The Freeh insanity depicts Penn State as a schizophrenic trying to convict itself of a crime imagined in the fevered mind of its own alter-ego, the Board of Trustees." 

In Part I CORBETT & SURMA - UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
the roots of the damaging decisions of the Board of Trustees were exposed, showing why Corbett, Surma and Corbett's appointees should have recused themselves from the Nov 9th meeting that resulted in the termination of President Spanier and Joe Paterno.

Although I have followed these events very closely since Linda Kelly's Presentment drew my interest on Nov 5, 2011; I was very surprised to find the enclosed documents among the 300 made available by Ryan Bagwell. They verify the 8 day timeline and actually confirm the effort to restrict the special investigation group to a tightly controlled Cobett conflicted few. 

If you want further confirmation that the events of Nov 9, 2011 were a well-planned and executed strategy on the part of the Attorney General turned Governor Tom Corbett and his willing Joe hating partner John Surma, then take a quick look at this timeline. Have you ever seen any sizable governing body move this quickly?

TIMELINE  NOV 5, 2011 Penn State stands accused at the moment Linda Kelly decides to put equal sized posters of AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz on her Presentment stage along side of a poster of Jerry Sandusky,  There was simply no equivalence involved in the crimes of which they are accused thus the display was part of a strategy to anchor a narrative of PSU enabling Sandusky's abuse.

The verifiable LIE in that presentment; that Mike McQueary saw a boy being "subjected to anal rape" on the Penn State campus was tied to Curley and Schultz in another LIE - that McQueary told this to Joe Paterno and then to the two PSU administrators.  Those lies created the media tsunami that made Penn State the equal villain in the public eye.

CORBETT & SURMA - UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

WHO REPRESENTED PENN STATE'S BEST INTERESTS IN NOV. 2011?

PART ONE - THE MAJOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

“In general, the most conventional form of a conflict of interest involves money—typically, an institutional decision maker has some kind of financial stake in the outcome of the decision.  A conflict can also arise when the decision maker has a non-monetary stake in the outcome of a decision—for example, a personal relationship, prestige, or career advancement.” 

by Barry Bozeman

Tom Corbett Embarrassed Trustee

Tom Corbett served as Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 2004 until he assumed office as Governor on January 18, 2011.

The Governor is automatically placed on the Penn State Board of Trustees. He also appoints six (6) members, in addition to his choices for PA Secretaries of Education, Conservation, and Agriculture, who sit on the Board along with a non-voting personal representative. This block of Trustees depends on the Governor for their positions, effectively making him the single most powerful presence in both voting power and influence.


Six (6) members of the Board are known as Business and Industry Trustees. These members are "self -selected" by an arcane procedure far from being transparent or apparent to those outside the process. Another six (6) members of the Board are known as Agriculture Trustees, who are selected through a county-by-county vote of the Commonwealth's agricultural societies (i.e., the PA Grange and the PA Farm Bureau).  We will discuss the business relationships of most of these members and the influence the Governor holds over them in our next installment.

Nine (9) members are elected by Alumni, the most independent and democratically selected group. That's only 9 members to attempt to balance 11 of the Governor's directly controlled members plus 6 each from Business & Industry and from Agriculture.

Kane vs. Fina: Will the excuses for foot-dragging the Sandusky investigation go up in smoke?

The Philadelphia Inquirer's "anonymously sourced" article about AG Kane's shut down of a bribery investigation appeared to be a desperate attempt at a preemptive strike by Frank Fina

By 
Ray Blehar

Last Sunday's Inky article about AG Kane shutting down a bribery (sting) investigation totally backfired on the not so "anonymous" sources who leaked the information.  Within hours of the story being posted, close followers of  the Sandusky Scandal were calling out former OAG Prosecutor, Frank Fina for leaking the information to the paper,  Those in the know understood that this was an attempt to smear Kane before she dropped the hammer on Fina for his role in the botched three-year investigation of Sandusky.

Casablancapa.blogspot.com called it "A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE"

Conversations on twitter echoed that sentiment and also pointed to a Legal Intelligencer article from March 2013 in which "anonymous sources" threatened to "go public" if Kane's investigation of the Sandusky investigation were 'overly critical' of their work on the case.  The LI noted that one of its sources formerly held a leadership post in the OAG.

WRSC Recap of Ray Blehar March 13, Interview

Until we can find/post an audio, here is a recap for those who may not have had a chance to listen (based on my memory of the interview).

WRSC:  Thoughts of the Dottie Sandusky interview?

Ray:  Much like last week's ESPN article on Mike McQueary, the Dottie Sandusky interview didn't "move the needle" of public opinion at all.  The public believes that Dottie is either in denial or delusional.  Her interview did little to change that perception.

WRSC:  Do you believe Sandusky is guilty of everything he was charged with?

Ray:  I have written at least 50 pages on the problems with the Sandusky investigation and the issue here is not Sandusky's guilt as much as it is that the investigation was conducted by narcotics agent who had investigated less than 10 CSA cases.  As a result, the took the victim's statements at face value and didn't evaluate them like an experienced CSA investigator would have done.  The prosecutors charged according to the evidence brought to them by the investigator.  I've pointed out that the janitor incident is a complete hoax and other victims exaggerated the crimes, but at the end of the day Sandusky was guilty of at least 25 crimes.  Sandusky was evaluated by two psychologists who both concluded he had a psycho-sexual disorder.  He's where he belongs.

WRSC:  What is the status of the Federal investigation of The Second Mile?

Ray:  The investigation is being led by Gordon Zubrod, who was the prosecuting attorney in the Kids for Cash scandal in Luzerne County.  He is notoriously slow.  He is being assisted by Michael Consiglio.  The investigation is looking at the financials of the charity.  Last December or January I wrote a series called Second Mile's Financial Statements Don't Add Up, where I found that they had understated revenues and padded expenses.  The federal investigation will take time because they are not getting any help from an insider and have to trace money through banks and other places.  It's a complex investigation.  Just watch an episode of American Greed to get an idea of the techniques used, such as wiretaps and traces.

WRSC: Lexicon communications wrote a piece on the screw ups by the Board in responding to the Sandusky scandal.  What did you think?

Ray:  First, the presentment was leaked on November 4 and the Board fired Paterno on November 9th.  They had five days to do a legal review.  This was not a panic situation.  There were three lawyers on the Board as regular members and at least four who were emeritus trustees.  Kenneth Frazier, was the General Counsel of Merck who decided to litigate the Vioxx cases individually saving Merck millions of dollars.  Are you telling me he didn't review the law before they made the decisons that they made.   I don't buy it.  This was a purposeful act and the Board knew in advance they were gonna can Joe and Graham. However, the piece by Steven Fink was on the money in several respects in terms of not managing the crisis and the hamhanded attempt at rebranding PSU.  As Fink said, "We don't need  a new brand.  We need a new Board."

WRSC:  The entire board or just a small group?

Ray:  Just a small cabal of trustees.  The power group.  Ben Novak has written about Board structure and there is the power group and the rest are just along for the ride.  There was no vote to fire Joe as much as it was a suggestion by Surma.  Al Clemens was calling in by phone from the airport and hardly knew what was happening.  Surma made the motion and no one objected.  A few days later the Executive  Committee voted to make it official.  But this was all planned in advance.

WRSC:  What do you think about Board reform?

Ray:  Reform is needed.  The power group needs to be broken up.  The Business and Industry group needs to be changed so that it just can't appoint members.

WRSC:  What are your thoughts on the Kane investigation?

Ray:  I have a lot of confidence in the Kane investigation or more properly, the investigation led by Geoffrey Moulton.  My Report 3 gave a preview of some of the things the investigation should find, such as the failure to follow up on leads and sitting on evidence.  I believe it will find misconduct by prosecutor Frank Fina.  If you read the filing by Spanier attorney, Tim Lewis, it states that there was misconduct by Fina and the grand jury judge in letting Spanier believe he was being represented by Cynthia Baldwin.

WRSC:  The grand jury judge?

Ray:  Yes, Judge Feudale, who was already removed as a grand jury judge by Kane.  He made very poor decisons in the case.  The presentment should have been sealed because it was so inflammatory it contaminated the jury pool.

WRSC:  What do you believe will happen with the trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier?

Ray:  I hope it goes to trial because the evidence is so weak.  Essentially, the prosecution has the testimony of Cynthia Baldwin and a couple e-mails.  That's it.  Of course, it is up to Judge Hoover to decide what will got to trial.  If he rules Baldwin was not representing the PSU Three then their grand jury testimony will be tossed and there goes the perjury charges.  Hoover could also rule that the failure to report charges should be dismissed and if so, then the Endangerment charges are out the window too.  That would leave conspiracy and obstruction, which is all predicated on Baldwin's testimony.  And Baldwin has been contradicted by almost everyone else who testified for the prosecution.

THE PENN STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRAITORS

By Barry Bozeman

Who are these exceptional men and women granted the honor of serving as Trustees of the great institution of higher learning known as The Pennsylvania State University? Who are these successful businessmen and women who rose to positions of power and prominence and were chosen to safeguard the reputation and financial resources of one of the finest institutions in the land? 

What manner of leader would fail to stand up for the integrity and honor signified by the Nittany Lion and the motto: Making Life Better? What Trustee would capitulate to a Presentment before trial and accept blame prior to judgment or liability for the actions of a former employee 11 years in the past?  If anyone attacks an institution you are entrusted to defend and protect, what will you expect if you lie down and surrender before the legal process indicates any fault or blame? Where is there any "SUCCESS WITH HONOR" in that cowardly rush to injustice? 

In the face of a media tsunami of bad publicity, these cowards and turncoats chose to surrender any claim to right action and accepted blame on behalf of the University based on a Presentment containing the lie that one of their assistant coaches had witnessed a child being "subjected to anal intercourse" by a former employee in the football locker room. They chose to accept the claim that two administrators and their football coach conspired to cover up this alleged incident based on various flimsy accounts by a possibly damaged and compromised assistant coach.  What do we call such people?  

trai·tor   noun

1.  a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, alma mater, etc.

"they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy"

synonyms:       betrayer, backstabber, double-crosser, renegade, fifth columnist; turncoat, defector, deserter; collaborator, informer, mole, snitch, double agent; Judas, Benedict Arnold, quisling;

informal:  snake in the grass, two-timer, rat, scab, fink

usage:  "convicted traitors will be executed"

Isn’t TRAITOR the proper word for the members of The PSU Board of Trustees in their handling of the all out attack on the university they are "trusted" to manage on behalf of its students, employees, and alumni?

This particular Board of Trustees – particularly the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, John Surma, Karen Peetz, Ira Lubert, and Kenneth Frazier, to name only a few – has “served” Penn State University by abandoning the President they hired, Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Tim Curley, and condemning them as guilty along with the world famous icon and Coach Joe Paterno on the basis of a Presentment, a document that makes the best case for an indictment by a grand jury without any cross examination of witnesses, exculpatory evidence, or questioning by defense counsel. 

They fired Coach Joe Paterno – a man who had brought nothing but honor to the job for which he was hired and praise for the manner in which he conducted himself and the successful football program that brought honor and positive recognition to the university he served. No single individual was more the well regarded  face of Penn State or such an asset in terms of positive recognition.  Joe Paterno is worth 100 John Surmas, Karen Peetzes, or Ken Fraziers.   

Their capitulation to the media and fear of “bad publicity” led them to make disastrous decisions concerning the financial well being of the University by paying out millions of dollars to victims of Jerry Sandusky that had nothing to do with anything involving Penn State

On the advice of the Governor, they hired his feckless hitman, Louis Freeh, and accepted a report blaming their administrators and football coach for a conspiracy to cover up for Jerry Sandusky on “evidence” that anyone with minimal cognitive ability would reject out of hand. The Freeh investigators never even questioned Mike McQueary, Coach Paterno, Gary Schultz, or Tim Curley. The Board accepted this report in total without any review or question within hours of its release. They did not even read it.

That's unbelievable and unforgivable. 

A CRACK IN THE WALL

by  Barry Bozeman


Read this ASAP:
STEPHEN FINKS A CRACK IN THE WALL FINALLY 

Stephen Fink is a professional crisis manager who operates Lexicon Communications. Here he gives his professional assessment of the massive mistakes made by the Penn State Board of Trustees in the wake of the Attorney Generals Presentment of Nov 4, 2011.

Fink writes:

As for Joe Paterno, even if his reputation and his record are restored, his lasting image will forever be tarnished by the cowardly actions of a weak and frightened board of trustees.
This is the same board that spent $800,000 recently to come up with a new “brand” – “Penn State Lives Here” – overlooking the fact that (a) the so-called brand is vacuous and meaningless, (b) was already in wide use by others, including ESPN’s “College Football Lives Here” media campaign, (c) does nothing to address the underlying crisis, and (d) there was absolutely wrong with the existing brand in the first place.
Penn State does not need a new brand; it needs a new board.

In a hastily called emergency meeting John Surma and Gov. Corbett orchestrated the firing of Coach Joe Paterno and President Graham Spanier based on the Presentment.  NO trial, NO jury, NO statements by the two PSU leaders - just a railroaded vote and a phone call to Paterno.

Penn State University has paid dearly for this tragic mistake and it's time to make the perpetrators pay.

John P. Surma led the charge to fire Joe Paterno 

Near the back of a conference room littered with coffee cups and plates of half-eaten fudge brownies and chocolate-chip cookies, a 79-year-old trustee and philanthropist named Mimi Coppersmith stood up and beseeched her colleagues to reconsider what they were poised to do. "Coach Paterno is revered here in State College," she said. (Image Mimi Coppersmith) 

"We're not going to drink the Kool-Aid," snapped John P. Surma, then the board's vice chairman and the chief executive officer of United States Steel Corp. "This is what we need to do."  

Surma then asked whether any trustee objected to the firing of coach Joe Paterno.             The question was met with silence.

The SURMA VENDETTA Part 2  

Al Clemens Resignation from The Penn State Board of Trustees

March 7, 2014

I have resigned from the Penn State Board of Trustees.

For most of the 18 years I served as a Trustee, I was proud to help Penn State grow and achieve its deserved stature, in both academics and athletics, as one of America’s top-rated public Universities.

On November 9th, 2011, I and my fellow Trustees, voted to fire Joe Paterno in a hastily called meeting. We had little advance notice or opportunity to discuss and consider the complex issues we faced. After 61 years of exemplary service, Coach Paterno was given no chance to respond. That was a mistake. I will always regret that my name is attached to that rush to injustice.

Hiring Louis Freeh and the tacit acceptance of his questionable conclusions, without review, along with his broad criticism of our Penn State culture was yet another mistake. In joining the Paterno family and others in their suit against the NCAA, I have distanced myself from the Board on this issue. I am determined to reverse all of the misguided sanctions which were designed to punish a football program without blemish, and were aimed at student-athletes innocent of any wrong-doing.

Over the past two years, concerned Alumni have spoken clearly and forcefully. They have replaced six incumbents with reform-minded Trustees determined to acknowledge and redress errors of judgment with positive actions. Those who believe we can move on without due process for all who have been damaged by unsupported accusations are not acting in Penn State’s best interest.

While I will continue to advocate for Penn State, I step down from the Board in keeping within the spirit of our vote for 12-year term limits. It is time for new leadership to step forward.

Penn State’s future is bright. Our President, Dr. Barron, brings him a fresh perspective, grounded in first-hand experience of the true culture of Success with Honor. We have the opportunity to move forward united in our commitment to truth.

I urge all who love Penn State’s name to fight on. WE ARE Penn State

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Alvin Clemons

Thornburgh, Paterno Rebuttals to Kenneth Frazier's Statement on the Paterno reports

Former U.S. Attorney Dick Thornburgh:

When we released our review of the Freeh report we were very careful not to question the motives or challenge the integrity of Mr. Freeh, his investigators or members of the Penn State Board of Trustees. Overheated rhetoric and personal attacks do nothing to advance the objective we all share of finding the truth in the Sandusky scandal.

That some members of the Board of Trustees want to reject our report out of hand, without the benefit of a review or discussion is unfortunate.  We believe the better course would be for the Board to have a public review of both reports. I personally would welcome a chance to discuss these issues with the Board.

We also believe that all of the files and records related to Mr. Freeh’s investigation should be released to the public. This will make it easier for everyone to judge the accuracy and thoroughness of his work.  The flaws of the Freeh report cannot be dismissed or overlooked. They are significant and numerous and must be addressed.  This case will not be resolved until the record is set straight.

Scott Paterno:

Speaking on behalf of my family, we find it unfortunate that Ken Frazier chose to make comments in a forum where his impressions of disputable facts were not open to challenge.
Mr. Frazier is certainly welcome to his personal opinion, but in his capacity as a member of the Board of Trustees, he should be more concerned with finding the full truth than with defending a clearly flawed report.
It has been and remains our hope that the Board of Trustees, led by Mr. Frazier's committee, would examine both reports as well as others. As we have said from the beginning, our team stands ready to answer any questions - an opportunity that we have been denied by the Board of Trustees since November of 2011.

We also do want to take exception with Mr. Frazier's characterization of both the Freeh report as "independent" and with our report as being merely a bought and paid for result. Mr. Freeh was hired by the Board of Trustees, which was and is an interested party in this matter. He is no more independent than our team.

We are proud of the team we assembled and the work they produced. Our team has the very best credentials and sterling reputations for independence - reputations they staked on their reports. To question their independence is to question their integrity. If Ken Frazier wants to question the integrity of Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, FBI profiler and abuse survivor Jim Clemente and world renowned pedophilia expert Dr. Berlin, he should at least allow them an opportunity to address the Board directly on this matter.

And just for fun, a trip down memory lane with Governor Tom Corbett talking about the Penn State investigation:

November 21, 2011:  I'm very pleased with Ken Frazier leading that. Ken – I've only known him a short time – but I'm very impressed with his leadership. I'm very impressed that he has put together some people, including Ron Tomalis, on behalf of the administration and also as [state] secretary of education, on that team, and the selection of Louis Freeh is I think a very good one. I'm sure most of you by now know the former director of the FBI and former federal judge Louis Freeh was appointed.

Kenneth Frazier: Anti-Child and Anti-PSU

Kenneth Frazier believes that his slick talk about the Freeh Report can fool us.  It can't.  Kenneth Frazier is a phony. He doesn't care about children and he doesn't represent PSU's interests.

By

Ray Blehar

Kenneth Frazier’s remarks in the Philadelphia Inquirer and elsewhere, did a disservice to Pennsylvania’s children, continued to inflict harm on Penn State University, and lacked common sense in terms of understanding the evidence in the Sandusky case.  Frazier commited errors of bias in his use and interpretation of the evidence in this case, and, like Linda Kelly and Louis Freeh, refused to acknowledge (i.e., throws away) any evidence that doesn’t fit his anti-PSU agenda.

That's right.  Anti-PSU.  Any person who would defend the Freeh Report, which resulted in PSU being labeled Pedophile State University, certainly can't be labeled anything but Anti-PSU.  At least that's how I see it.

I find it astonishing that one of our Board members, who is a well accomplished attorney and who gained notoriety for fighting the Vioxx lawsuits on a case-by-case basis (rather than in a class action), would refuse to defend PSU officials who were erroneously charged with failure to report child abuse. 

Frazier contends – as do Freeh and Kelly - that the decision made not to report the 2001 incident to DPW provides a reasonable basis to conclude a report was not made to authorities.  Yet, two former PSU employees (Courtney and Schultz) both stated that they believed the University contacted Centre County CYS about the incident -- fulfilling their legal mandate to report. 

Why wouldn’t Frazier, as an attorney, and as someone representing PSU, come to the defense of Schultz and Curley in light of these statements?  Why wouldn't Frazier, as I have done, challenge the AG to prove a report was not made to CYS?  Proving a negative is nearly impossible. And Frazier knows it.

Why wouldn’t Frazier review the law and take the position that Curley’s report to The Second Mile should have fulfilled the legal requirement of causing a report to be made to authorities and put the onus of the failure on The Second Mile?

The simple answer is that Kenneth Frazier does not care about the reputation of PSU.  What Ken Frazier cares about is PSU's bank account and the bank accounts of he and his cohorts on the BOT.

PSU Finances

It has become rather obvious that Frazier and the November 2011 BOT cut a budget deal with Tom Corbett (with a few other "sweeteners" thrown in).  The deal makes a lot of sense from a financial perspective, because the $60M in fines and other costs of the scandal pale in comparison to what Corbett could do to PSU in a single year with his budget axe.  How was it that in Spanier’s last year, Corbett proposed $160M in budget cuts, but after Spanier’s departure, PSU got (and will continue to get) a level budget?   

However, there is yet another financial reason that is likely behind the BOT’s push to “move forward” and not fight the sanctions.  PSU is loaning the Athletic Department the money to pay the fines.  The first loan was for $12M at 4% to be paid back to the University over 30 years.  As a result, the University stands to make $8.8M on its loan if the loan goes full term.  If similar arrangements are made for the other loans to the Athletic Department, PSU stands to gain $44M over the next 35 years.  The Athletic Deparment pays the loans from its revenues, the University doesn't pay a dime.  But who ends up paying?  The student athletes who don't get scholarships to PSU, the same athletes who will have to make due with less than the best facilities (as maintenance and other support are cut), and the athletic boosters who support PSU athletics will likely face increasing costs for tickets, parking, and concessions. 

What does the BOT have to pay for their negligence in the scandal?  Nothing. 

They're indemnified --  unless it can be proven they committed crimes. 

Just thought I'd throw that in.     

For those of you who are hand-wringing over the potential payments to Sandusky’s victims,  you need not be concerned.   These are settlements to avoid the potential heavy costs of litigation. In comparison to the other money involved in the scandal, the settlement money to the victims is "chump change."

BOT Not Protecting Children

In the article, Frazier sets up a false choice between the BOT’s alleged purpose of preventing harm to children and the BOT’s critics as people whose only concern is vindicating Paterno. 

It’s a convenient set of labels, but neither is true.

Frazier and the BOT have steered clear of making any mention of the failures of The Second Mile, DPW, and CYS in protecting children.    All of these entities had far more qualified people to identify Sandusky as a child molester back in 1998 and 2001, yet failed to do so.  Yet, Kenneth Frazier wants us all to believe that it was Curley, Schultz, Paterno, and Spanier that “at the moment of truth..did not put the welfare of children first.” 

Frazier hides behind the excuse that Freeh was chartered to do an internal investigation and not look at DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile.   That's a convenient out for Kenneth Frazier and the BOT, but it's not convenient for the 25,000 children who will be harmed and the 40 children that will lose their lives this year in child abuse incidents. 

Frazier needs only to find a mirror if he wants to see who is failing Pennsylvania’s children. 

His silence – as well as the rest of the BOT members who refuse to acknowledge failures outside of PSU – continues to put children at risk.  Anyone who has fallen for the story that PSU is the world’s leader in child abuse prevention (as some are claiming) needs to understand that funding a child abuse research center at Hershey Medical Center and throwing money at child protection charities doesn’t put the resources where they are needed most – on the front-lines at CYS and DPW to recruit, train, and retain qualified and caring child protection caseworkers.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last reviewed DPW in 2008 and published its findings in March 2009.  The report revealed substandard performance in all sixteen of the items related to child safety.  Pennsylvania's record for child protection is abysmal and it was the last state in the U.S. to meet the standards for funding under the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act.  It didn't obtain CAPTA compliance until 2006.

It is clear that Frazier and PSU BOT have done about as very little research on child abuse and child abuse prevention and are completely unaware of the basics. 

As I pointed out in Tuesday’s blog, the Policy AD73, created in response to the Sandusky scandal, actually puts minor children in one-on-one situations with adults, which goes against well established two person rules in programs for youth. 

Policy AD39, regarding minors involved in university program, is also a lawsuit waiting to happen because it contains no provisions protecting the identities of child abuse victims nor the alleged perpetrator.  It also contains no provisions regarding the destruction of records pertaining  to child abuse reports.

The PSU BOT and the PSU General Counsel are “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight” when it comes to child protection.

World leader?  Hardly.

Freeh's Critics Are the Real Protection Advocates

Conversely, this blogger and many of the blog’s followers are staunch advocates for child protection and reforming Pennsylvania’s abysmal system.  We actually know the facts about the system, whereas Frazier and most of the BOT only know what Louis Freeh put in the text of his report.

It is abundantly clear that Frazier did not read the extremely well-written report by Jim Clemente that undoubtedly is invaluable in helping parents and anyone else identify offenders like Sandusky.  Frazier lumped the Clemente report in with those of Thornburg and Berlin and called it self-serving.  Conversely, responsible and caring BOT members, like Ryan McCombie, have praised Clemente's report for the lessons it provided.

Additonally, it is clear Kenneth Frazier has not visited this blog or the new web-site at SanduskyReports.com  and viewed all of the information about child welfare and child protection.  And it is highly unlikely that Frazier read my  first report which primarily focused on child protection and reforming the child protection system. 

Finally, my quest to improve child protection in Pennsylvania continues.  I will be writing a series of blog posts regarding the service levels provided by Centre County CYS so that the public will be better informed about how the system operates.  I can honestly say that most will find the system appalling on several levels.

Biased Use of Evidence

Frazier’s interpretation of the evidence in this case is exactly the same as Louis Freeh’s and Linda Kelly’s – and it’s wrong.  Of course, as accomplished attorneys all, they are doing as they are trained to do – focus on the evidence that supports their case and diminish the evidence that fails to support it. 

Under scrutiny, Frazier’s arguments based on the evidence he chose, falls apart.

Frazier: "The most important service that Judge Freeh did was to produce that documentary  record for us. We didn't have that," Frazier said. "But for his competence, I don't believe we would have it."

Rebuttal: Court documents show that Gary Schultz provided notification to PSU about the existence of his files on Sandusky on or about January 5, 2011.   Perhaps if Frazier amended the statement above to say, “But had it not been for Cynthia Baldwin’s incompetence, I believe we would have had it a over a year sooner” the statement would have some merit.  The biggest question I have is did Cynthia Baldwin tell Kenneth Frazier about this file prior to it being "discovered" by Louis Freeh?

Frazier:  In response to the e-mail evidence that indicated Paterno knew few details about

Sandusky, Frazier said he found that "at odds with the plain language of those documents."

Rebuttal: There are only 13 e-mails that reference the 1998 and 2001 incidents.  No one knows how many e-mails Freeh excluded that contained exculpatory information.  That is very likely one of the reasons why Frazier is so adamant that the Freeh investigation is not re-investigated.  Not only would evidence be found to exonerate PSU officials, but I firmly believe a re-investigation would result in criminal charges against the BOT and Freeh.  And it would likely reveal the NCAA broke its own rules by using information obtained via a criminal investigation. 

But I digress. 

As for Frazier's contention of the "plain language" of the documents proving Paterno knew the details, the best rebuttal is by the use of a fictional example of an e-mail that Mr. Frazier should equally characterize as having "plain language" that shows he knew many details of a (fictional) fraud committed at Merck.

Here's the email:

From:  Joe Smith, Merck Corporate Security

Sent:   Wenesday, May 6, 2007

To:       John Adams, Merck VP Finance

Subject:  Re: Kenneth Frazier

Will do. Since we talked tonight I’ve learned that the FBI people will interview the individual on Thursday.

At 5:24PM 5/5/2007, John Adams wrote:

I have touched base with the Attorney.  Keep us posted.  Thanks.

According to Frazier - and people like Sally Jenkins - the attorney referenced in this e-mail cannot be anyone other than Kenneth Frazier.  His name is on the subject line and he is an attorney, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Attorney has to be Frazier. Additionally, since Smith made the notation that the FBI was interviewing someone, it obviously had to do with the fraud case that was going on in 2007.  And because Adams is a protege (errand boy) of Frazier, Adams undoubtedly told Frazier the complete details of the fraud case.  So, the evidence in the e-mail above, according to Kenneth Frazier, would cause one to reasonably conclude that he knew the all of the details of the 2007 Merck fraud investigation.

Really?

I cannot imagine Frazier being confronted with this piece of evidence and Frazier rolling over and saying it is evidence that he had complete knowledge of the 2007 investigation.   If someone accused Frazier, based on this evidence, he would laugh them out of the room.  So would any other person with half a brain (rule out Sally Jenkins -- she considers these e-mails to be not just smoking guns, but guns with flames shooting out the barrels).

The only other e-mail referencing Paterno was Exhibit 5G, which indicates Curley had a discussion with Paterno before coming to a decision on the Sandusky matter. There is nothing in the e-mail about the content or the length of the discussion with Curley that would provide evidence  for Frazier to make a conclusion that Paterno knew details based on the “plain language" of that document.  There is no evidentiary basis for Frazier's statement.

Frazier stated that Exhibit 5A, the McQuaide-Blasko timesheet of Wendell Courtney indicates that Schultz considered the incident to be a case of child sexual abuse.

Rebuttal:  This is an attribution error.  The author of the document is Wendell Courtney, not Gary Schultz.  Schultz reported the 9 February incident, as told to him by Paterno, to Courtney.  No one knows, without talking to Schultz, what he believed he was reporting to Courtney.  Courtney performed legal research that dealt with child abuse.  It is Courtney's interpretation of the incident, not Schultz's.

-Frazier stated never in writing did anybody say “horsing around” or “can’t tell how bad this is.”

Rebuttal:  Spanier’s statement at Exhibit 2J states:  “I recall asking two questions: “Are you sure that is how it was described to you, as horsing around?  Both replied, “yes.”

Clearly, Frazier was omitting evidence that does not fit his narrative.  If Frazier were to argue that he was exclusively addressing what was said in the e-mail discussions, then he is correct that the term "horsing around" was not used in e-mail.  However, using the same argument, the words child sex abuse, sexual, or even showering were not mentioned in formal e-mails in 1998 and 2001.  In both cases, there is nothing specifically mentioned in e-mail about the nature of the incidents.  His argument would be ripped to shreds in court by anyone who has watched an episode of Law and Order.

Frazier noted that  Schultz’s handwritten note (Exhibit 2H)  that Schultz and others knew Sandusky had gone over the line because of the notation “had to be genital contact because of the size difference.”

Rebuttal:  There are at least three errors in Frazier’s logic. The first is his conclusion that the description of the act was over the line.  The 1998 investigation resulted in no finding of abuse and that Sandusky’s genitals didn’t contact the child.  Frazier’s conclusion is not only at odds with the results of the official investigation but the trial verdicts regarding Victim 6 -- which found Sandusky not guilty of indecent assault.

The second error is that Frazier considered this a statement of fact.  It wasn’t.  It was an assumption made by the mother.

The third error is another attribution error.  The source of that information was the mother of Victim 6 and the statement is not a conclusion, but an assumption.  The full statement is: “Mother asked how did he give hug – had to be genital contact because of the size difference.”  However, the full context of the note shows that the flow of information is attributed to the Mother, not Schultz.  See below:

The italicized “but when asked of boy” indicates that the first statement, which Frazier referred to, was provided by the mother.  Also, note that the mother asked Brendan, then neighbor, questions.  The questioning of Brendan took place between 9PM on May 3 and 1100AM on May 4. Schreffler called CYS spoke with caseworker John Miller about the incident.  Miller phoned back later to state he would accompany Schreffler on the interview of the second child (Brendan).

Frazier Is Covering for the state, Corbett, and the BOT

Kenneth Frazier’s concern for children is insincere and his behavior in this case has been despicable.  It is clear that Frazier has gone over Schultz's notes, and like Freeh and Linda Kelly, refuses to acknowledge the most important notation on those four pages:

Mother concerned something more

– kid took another shower last night & this a.m.

Repeated washing or feeling dirty is one of the strongest signs of possible child sexual abuse.

Yet, this remark doesn’t appear in the text of the Freeh Report.

Nor is it ever mentioned in the text of the November 2011 and 2012 grand jury presentments.

 According to the 1998 police report, Detective Schreffler explained the information he had obtained from the mother and Victim 6 to CYS’s Miller.   Miller shared his files with DPW official, Jerry Lauro.  The police and the caseworkers were aware of not only this potential sign of child abuse, but of many others, based on Schultz’s notes. 

They knew it - and they blew it.

Clearly, Governor Corbett did not want the responsibility for Sandusky’s 14 years of abuse to roll up on his state agency – DPW.   While the state can’t be sued, arrangements such as the 9/11 victims fund, typically get set up when there is a case of the government failing to provide adequate protection resulting in massive harm to citizens.  This would have been the case for PA DPW, had it not been for the PSU BOT’s willingness to cut a deal with Corbett to take the fall for Sandusky.

Moreover, as an additional favor to Corbett, the PSU BOT has not said one harsh word about the failings of DPW or about The Second Mile (who provided funds and held fundraisers for Corbett).

Many of us have come to the realization that Frazier and the Board sold out Pennsylvania's children to preserve the PSU budget. 

And most of us know the BOT's call for "moving forward" was because they are likely hiding something far worse than a budget deal and don't want the alumni digging around.

We're digging until the truth is uncovered.