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? 

PROSECUTION or PERSECUTION - The CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

FEAR & LOATHING in HAPPY VALLEY - PENN STATE LEADERS UNDER ATTACK
by Barry Bozeman

“ The District Attorney is a quasi-judicial officer. He represents the commonwealth and the commonwealth demands no victims. It seeks justice only--equal and impartial justice-- and it is as much the duty of the district attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is to see that no guilty man escapes. Hence, he should act impartially. He should present the commonwealth’s case fairly, and should not press upon the jury any deductions from the evidence that are not strictly legitimate. When he exceeds this limit, and in hot zeal seeks to influence them by appealing to their prejudices, he is no longer an impartial official, but becomes a heated partisan.” Bailey v. Commonwealth, 193 Ky. 687, 237 S.W. 

In Nov of 2012 mere weeks prior to relinquishing the office to which she was appointed by Tom Corbett, Linda Kelly once again takes the stage to proffer charges against Penn State's former President Graham Spanier and to alter the charges against former AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz. 

SMSS was on this development prior to the typical staged circus designed by Kelly et al to maximize the theater for the chattering hyena class sometimes known as the media. Once again she fills her stage with a large supporting cast, this time featuring more uniforms than a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff. 

One thing leaps out at us from the beginning when taking more than a cursory glance at this freak show. What exactly was the motive for this Conspiracy of Silence touted by the Freeh Fiction and the Persecution? Why would covering for an ex-coach no longer on the payroll of PSU be of the slightest benefit to Graham Spanier, Tim Curley or Gary Schultz? Please keep that in mind as you delve deeper into this morass of prevarications. 

Mad Libs: Who was responsible for Sandusky's crimes

By
Wendy Sliverwood

Taken from page 5 of the Introduction of the Freeh Report:

“The evidence shows that ________________ also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower.  Again, ___________showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that ________________was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his ___________________for almost _______ years, and had an office just steps away from ___________.  At the very least, ___________ could have alerted the entire ______________ staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the ______________.  _________________also failed to alert the _________________about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky.  ________________ even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct.

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity. “

…If we replace “Paterno” with other key individuals we can make some reasonable conclusions…

Alycia Chambers – State College Psychologist

The evidence shows that Ms. Chambers’ colleagues were made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an agent of the County by virtue of his adoptive & foster parent status, and had an office in a childrens’ charity just minutes away from Ms. Chambers office.  At the very least, Ms. Chambers could have alerted the entire Centre County CYS staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into his home. Ms Chambers and her colleagues also failed to alert The Second Mile Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Jack Raykovitz – CEO The Second Mile

The evidence shows that Jack Raykovitz was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an Executive Director of The Second Mile, and had an office just steps away from Dr. Raykovitz.  At the very least, Dr. Raykovitz could have alerted the entire Second Mile staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child to Second Mile events, outings and camps.  Dr. Raykovitz also failed to alert CYS/DPW/Childline about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  Dr. Raykovitz instructed Sandusky to wear swimming trunks on future occasions when he showers with young boys.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity (while wearing swim trunks).

Child Protective Services

The evidence shows that Jerry Lauro and John Miller were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed reports with their agencies, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been the subject of abuse complaints by Debra Long (the natural mother of Matt Sandusky).  At the very least, Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller could have alerted The Second Mile in order to prevent Sandusky from one on one contact with children.  Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller also failed to alert the the Centre County courts about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct, even though Mr. Lauro was present at the Sandusky interview. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

The University Park Police

The evidence shows that Tom Harmon and Ronald Schreffler were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed a police report about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a PSU employee for thirty years, and had an office on the PSU campus.  At the very least, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Shreffler could have alerted the entire University Park Police Department in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child onto campus.  Mr. Harmon and Mr. Schreffler also failed to alert the Pennsylvania state police about the 1998 investigation or takeany further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct other Schreffler telling him not to repeat the practice of showering with children.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Three vs. Ten: Unequal Justice Under the Law

If There Was A Cover-Up of Jerry Sandusky's Crimes, Then Why Weren’t All TEN Conspirators Charged and Held Accountable?
by
Eileen Morgan

By 2001, Jerry Sandusky had retired from Penn State to work full time at his charitable youth foundation, The Second Mile.  Sandusky founded The Second Mile in 1977 to help underprivileged youth reach their full potential.  On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse.

On July 12, 2012, Louis Freeh declared in his report that the senior officials at Penn State conspired to cover-up Jerry Sandusky’s child molestation to avoid bad publicity.  A ‘cover-up’ is defined as ‘a concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public.’  

Penn State’s culpability in the Jerry Sandusky Sex Scandal precariously pivots on the 2001 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary.  We know that Mike McQueary walked into a locker room on an evening in February, 2001 and saw Sandusky alone in a shower with a young boy from The Second Mile.  Mike McQueary, who was upset by what he "saw," called his father, John McQueary, to convey what he just witnessed.  His father did not instruct Mike to call the police but rather to ‘come home.’ 

The McQuearys and Dr. Dranov Discuss the Incident

Mike then came home and spoke again to his father and family friend, Dr. Dranov, about what he had seen just moments earlier.  John McQueary was a physician assistant and CEO of a physician’s practice.  In their respective professional positions, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov were mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse.  If they failed to report suspected child abuse they would face criminal charges and jail time.  Dr. Dranov testified that on the night in question he asked Mike, “What did you see?”  Mike kept going back to the sounds. Dr. Dranov repeated the question, THREE times in total, “Mike, What did you see?”  But Mike kept going back to the sounds.  Dr. Dranov also testified that the only visual account Mike relayed was that he saw ‘a boy look around, made eye contact, and then an arm pulled him back.  Mike looked again and saw Sandusky walking out of the shower.’  Because Dr. Dranov was a mandatory reporter, his repeated questioning was to clarify if a crime had been committed so that he would know whether or not to call the police and report Sandusky’s crime as mandated by law. 

Mike McQueary, the elder McQueary, nor Dr. Dranov called the police that night.  There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no crime witnessed or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

The Report to PSU Officials

The following morning, at the insistence of the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov, Mike McQueary went to the home of Joe Paterno to tell Paterno what he had seen the night before.  Paterno then relayed the information to his superiors, Tim Curley-Penn State Athletic Director, and Gary Schultz-Penn State VP of Business & Finance, who oversaw the University Park Police, and they, in turn, relayed the information to Penn State President Graham Spanier.  Curley and Schultz then met with McQueary to hear the account directly from him.    Based on the information and details from McQueary, the three officials (Curley, Schultz and Spanier) agreed that Curley should report McQueary’s account to Sandusky’s employer, The Second Mile.  Paterno, Curley, Schultz, nor Spanier called the police. 

There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no criminal activity reported to them by the witness or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

The Second Mile Gets The Report

The Second Mile’s Executive Director,  Jack Raykovitz, a licensed psychologist and mandatory reporter who was responsible for the children at the organization, took the information from Curley and discussed it with two board members of The Second Mile and the three of them decided it was a non-incident.  Raykovitz nor the other two board members called the police. 

There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no criminal activity reported to them by the hearsay witness or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

Chart of 2001 Sandusky Shower Incident

McQueary- Eyewitness
                John McQueary – hearsay witness
                Dr. Dranov – hearsay witness
                Joe Paterno – hearsay witness
                Tim Curley – hearsay witness
                Gary Schultz – hearsay witness

Graham Spanier – hearsay witness (once removed from McQueary)

Jack Rakovitz-2nd Mile CEO – hearsay witness (once removed from McQueary)
                          
          Second Mile Board Member #1 – hearsay witness (twice removed from McQueary)

          Second Mile Board Member #2 – hearsay witness (twice removed from McQueary)

In all, 10 men were directly or indirectly aware of the 2001 incident witnessed by Mike McQueary.

Was This A Cover-Up?

The actions/testimony of all the hearsay witnesses was identical.

If there was a cover-up to conceal Sandusky’s crimes, then they would necessarily be acting in concert.  John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier testified that no criminal sexual act between Sandusky and the child was reported to them by Mike McQueary.  None of these men called the police when the incident was reported to them and their testimony validates why they did not call the police. 

If there was a cover-up, there would have been an effort to conceal the incident.  However, the facts show that each man McQueary talked to reported the incident to other individuals up the chain of command. 

If John McQueary and Dr. Dranov were covering up for Sandusky’s crimes, then they would never have told Mike to report the incident to Paterno. 

If Paterno wanted to cover-up for Sandusky’s crimes, then he would not have reported it to Curley and Schultz.  Not only did the hearsay witnesses not conceal the information, but Curley reported it outside the university to the CEO of The Second Mile.  If the Penn State Officials were concealing Sandusky’s crimes they most definitely would NOT have reported the incident to additional people, let alone The Second Mile.  To share this information with other individuals outside of their circle would have relinquished control of their cover-up putting them at high risk of being exposed.  The PSU officials’ actions were the antithesis of the actions of a cover-up.  In addition, McQueary testified that he told other individuals about the incident and that he was never told by any of his superiors not to tell others.  “Neither Curley nor Schultz ever told me not to talk about this to others.  Neither of them made any effort to prevent me from talking to anyone in the world.”

Since the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov are mandatory reporters and did not report the incident, one can only assume that they believed Mike did not witness child sex abuse by Sandusky.  Each of the men, Mike McQueary, John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Schultz, Curley and Spanier, were concerned that Sandusky was showering alone with a child and they each reported it to a person up the chain of command they thought would best handle the situation given the information and facts they had at the time.  Sandusky was confronted about the incident and told that it was inappropriate to shower with children.

So, what was the reason why the eyewitness, along with the other nine hearsay witnesses, did not call the police?  Were the men conspiring to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse? 

The preponderance of evidence clearly says NO.  The reason no one called the police was because no crime was witnessed by Mike McQueary.  The evidence, actions and testimony of all the individuals involved clearly prove that there was no effort to conceal the 2001 shower incident, at least up to the point that The Second Mile was informed. 

The problem with the State’s case against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, is that neither John McQueary nor Dr. Dranov has been charged with perjury, failure to report, or conspiracy.  This can only mean that the State believes their testimony to be credible and true.  If Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier acted in the same manner as the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov (not calling the police) and testified similarly as the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov regarding McQueary’s account, then why has Paterno been blamed and why have Curley, Schultz, and Spanier been charged with perjury, child endangerment, and conspiracy, yet John McQueary and Dr. Dranov have not? 

All six men received the same account from McQueary.  If there was a conspiracy to cover-up then ALL the men were in collusion and should be held accountable.  Since the State does not believe John McQueary or Dr. Dranov broke the law, then they certainly should not be charging Curley, Schultz and Spanier with breaking the law. 

Either all the men broke the law and are at fault or none of them are at fault.  This is an egregious injustice by the state of Pennsylvania.  The Attorney General’s haphazard methods of applying the law in this case must be exposed.

Finally, Mike McQueary filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against Penn State in October, 2012.  In that lawsuit there are no claims by McQueary that he was forced to conspire with Paterno, Curley, Schultz or Spanier to conceal Sandusky’s child abuse crimes.  Certainly McQueary would have filed that charge in his lawsuit to assure a victory and maximum payout.  This clearly proves, in addition to the other evidence, that there was no such concealment by Penn State officials to cover-up for Jerry Sandusky’s crimes as alleged by Louis Freeh’s Report. 

Who really failed to "report" the 2001 incident?

In the rush to judgment of PSU officials, many believed that Sandusky getting cleared in 1998 resulted in PSU officials thinking 2001 was a repeat of the prior incident.   However, few have considered the same could be said for CYS and DPW officials, who had been lulled into complacency about Sandusky for decades.

By

Ray Blehar

There are two major problems with the allegations that PSU officials didn't report Sandusky to authorities in 2001.   The first, and most obvious problem, is that under the law, PSU officials DID report it to the proper authorities.  In fact, they did it twice.  The second problem is that no one has considered that the PSU report was ignored by authorities.

Report to CYS

Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney recalled reporting the incident to Children and Youth Services. Schultz's statement is on page 213 of the Preliminary Perjury hearing transcripts, while Courtney's is on page 84 of the Freeh Report.

For some reason, these reports were immediately discounted because PSU didn't report the incident to DPW.  Legally, a report to DPW is not required if a report was made to CYS.  CYS has the responsibility, once notified, to file an abuse report with ChildLine.

Despite the Freeh team spending nine months on the PSU campus, there is no indication in the Freeh Report that the team took any investigative steps to determine if that report occurred.  Certainly, a group that allegedly could pin point the exact date and time of an internet search conducted 11 years prior (to find the chair of Second Mile) should have the wherewithal to check some phone records at PSU or CYS or check call logs to determine if a report was made.  

But those investigative steps weren't taken.

Also, few have considered that the OAG investigator did not check to see if a report was made in 2001.  Detective Anthony Sassano stated at the Preliminary Perjury hearing that he contacted CYS and DPW to check on a 2002 report of abuse.   Sassano indicated the agency officials answered negatively, however,  Sassano also stated that DPW had a record of the incident in its possession.  At some point, the Commonwealth expunged this record, but it appears the record survived at least until Sassano made the inquiry.  

Given the above, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that Schultz and/or Courtney did not make the report.  That's a tall order because the state can only rely on the testimony of the DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro (who is not a reliable witness) and Carol Smith, a CYS official who has every reason to want to shift the blame for Sandusky on PSU after her agency's miserable performance in 1998.

Report to The Second Mile

It is well documented and insdisputable that PSU made a report of the 2001 incident to The Second Mile.  Bruce Heim, a board member of the charity, stated he considered it a non-incident because he knew that Sandusky showered with children frequently.  Heim told Raykovitz not to report the incident to The Second Mile Board.

The Pennsylvania law on the books at the time of the incident required that PSU officials either make a report or cause an incident to be reported.  Considering that The Second Mile was responsible for the welfare of the child in question in the 2001 incident, and that Sandusky was an employee under contract of The Second Mile, it is beyond dispute that The Second Mile should have reported the incident.

No one, except one person, involved in the reporting of the incident at PSU could be considered a mandated reporter under the law.  A mandated reporter must come in contact with children as part of their professional duties.  Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley were in positions where they were not required to interact with minors.  The only person in the employment of PSU in 2001 who may have had interactions with children, as part of his job duties, was Mike McQueary.  McQueary had this interaction through his work at youth sports camps.

Complacency

Many have opined that PSU officials may have went soft on Sandusky because of the previous investigation of him in 1998 that resulted in no charges.  I think that is a plausible explanation.  Why pull in the police and the child welfare caseworkers for another investigation of a likely similar incident?  Just tell Sandusky to knock off the showering with kids and have The Second Mile get him some help with this "quirky" behavior.   

And while Second Mile is at it, send Bruce Heim to class with Jerry because Heim didn't think there was anything wrong with Jerry's behavior.

However, few have considered the complacency that was even more likely to have set in at CYS and DPW.

Consider that Sandusky successfully navigated the system's various background checks to become the adoptive father of five sons and a daughter, a foster parent, a host for a half-dozen Fresh Air Fund children from New York City and a congressional honoree as an "Angel in Adoption."

Court records also show Sandusky and his wife, Dottie, were designated to coordinate visits with his grandchildren in 2010 when one son's marriage began to disintegrate.

Pennsylvania laws require that licensed social workers screen prospective families through a number of nets, including FBI checks and child abuse clearances. Prospective parents undergo reference checks, interviews and a medical report that asks a physician to certify that an individual is mentally and physically prepared to be a parent. 

Therefore state (DPW) and county (CYS) officials had been dealing with the Sandusky's for decades prior to the 1998 incident to conduct the screenings for he and Dottie as adoptive and foster parents.  Those agencies had given the "green light" to the Sanduskys on numerous occasions, thus had little reason to suspect anything untoward about Jerry Sandusky.  

Their confidence about the "goodness" of Sandusky was evident in the notes from the 1998 investigation.  The caseworker from CYS, John Miller, despite having knowledge of numerous signs of possible child sexual abuse, possessing a damning psychological report, and being alerted to other possible victims was unsure about pressing forward with the investigation.  He called a meeting at CYS for them to "decide what to do."

As police records reveal, CYS procured John Seasock (at the request of DPW) to conduct a second evaluation of one of the children who were the subjects of the investigation in 1998.   This evaluation was done over  the objections of ADA Karen Arnold and University Park Police Detective Ronald Schreffler.  Seasock's evaluation stated Sandusky was not exhibiting any signs of possible sexual abuse and the 1998 investigation was effectively ended.

Given what transpired in 1998, it is certainly possible that CYS simply decided not to investigate the report of a similar sounding incident that was reported to them in 2001.

If anyone had a reason to be complacent about Jerry Sandusky, it was the child welfare officials who had approved him as an adoptive and foster parent for decades.

Sandusky Investigation Was The Bible on How NOT to Conduct An Investigation

The OAG investigation of Sandusky ignored the DOJ's "Child Molester Investigator's Bible" and unnecessarily endangered Pennsylvania's children for nearly three years

by Ray Blehar 

When comparing the Jerry Sandusky investigation with the procedures outlined in the  U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines for conducting child abuse investigations, it is clear  that the Pennsylvania State Police and the Office of Attorney General botched the investigation from the start, never got it on track, and let it languish until Aaron Fisher threatened to walk away in August 2011.  

A task force was not established until April 2011:  The first step in any child abuse investigation is to establish a multi-disciplined task force of highly trained individuals.  In the Sandusky investigation, the well trained state police officer who normally worked the cases, Officer Patterson, was replaced by a host of state troopers who did not have the requisite training.   The police in this case had little interaction with the social service professionals, such as Mike Gillum, throughout the investigation.  And all of the victims who were brought to trial were found before the establishment of the task force. 

One Year Anniversary - We Know the TRUTH

Significant updates concerning Cynthia Baldwin have been added to this one year anniversary post but this story needs to remain intact in order to cover that disastrous week in Nov. 2011 and the events leading up to that week. We can now refocus our efforts and reacquaint ourselves in the wake of the election with the horrible injustice done to Joe Paterno and PSU administrators by the now replaced Attorney General and the current Governor along with the Board of Trustees and Louis Freeh. Their actions should not go unchallenged and opposed.  Barry Bozeman FREEHdom Fighter  

"Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Dr. Graham Spanier conspired to cover up allegations of child abuse by failing to report an incident witnessed by Mike McQueary in order to save the PSU football program from bad publicity." 

Remember Remember those Days Last November 

The BoT Treason and Plot 

by Barry Bozeman 

Kelly links AD Curley and VP Schultz
to Jerry Sandusky with perjury charge.  

The nature of business and political power in a our system can sometimes lead to terrible consequences. The collusion of common interests from Governor Tom Corbett and his appointed successor as Attorney General Linda Kelly, his long time acquaintance ripe for a 6.5 million dollar payday Louis Freeh, and a group of the most influential members of the PSU Board of Trustees is what we might expect it to be. Things have worked out as they have, not because these people conspired to undermine justice but by the very nature of their relationships it is simply in their best interest - selfish self interest - to behave as they have. "Enlightened" self interest is not always just and it does not lead to the truth or fairness. That's part of the conflict between corporate and business interests and an interest in truth and justice. 

The Mind of a Pedophile - Getting it Right

NEW YORKER's Malcomb Gladwell - A realistic look at Sandusky in The Mind of a Pedophile. 

It has been a long time coming but is there finally some common sense and reality slipping into the conscience of the media?

The PSU Board of Trustees could have made this a real debate 10 months ago had they simply stood by Joe, Tim, Gary, and Graham Spanier and made the Attorney General prove her absurd charges that a cover up of a known pedophile had occurred at PSU. Instead led by Tom Corbett and John P. Surma they hired Louis Freeh to cement the idea of a cover up in the public consciousness. 

This move to hire disgraced former FBI failure Louis Freeh for a second unwarranted fictional indictment compounded the egregious error by John P Surma - who cancelled Joe Paterno's press conference and then led the charge to fire him and Dr Spanier - signaling the media that the Board of Trustees believed they were guilty of this Linda Kelly imagined cover up. Surma evidently did this as part of a personal vendetta against the aging coach. 

 — the people who knew Sandusky, saw him with children, saw him playing and touching and even showering with them, and never suspected he was what he was.

Childcare specialists  trained in identifying the tell-tale signs of pedophilia cleared Sandusky during the 1998 probe into a mother’s concern over a workout and shower. No charges were brought in that case.

Mother of Victim 6: “This whole thing stinks so much more than we all know.”

Press reports detailing the police investigation were largely overshadowed by the events of the trial.  While we work to build a complete timeline, what we’ve uncovered so far appears to be both a cover-up and a change of direction.

In late 2010, the police sat down with mother of Victim 6 and paged through Sandusky’s book Touched.  She readily identified other boys who had often attended football games together. The mother then said something quite astonishing:

“At one point police told me they’ve had less evidence in murder cases,” she said. “I kept being told, March, April, June, October. ... The AG kept asking for more evidence. The police told me they had enough for 400 counts, but the AG wanted only 40. This whole thing just stinks so much more than we all know.”

Around the same time that police were contacting the mother of Victim 6, they also knocked on the door of assistant coach Mike McQueary and asked him if rumors were true that he’d witnessed something in the locker room on campus.   Despite rumors of McQueary meeting with police in a parking lot to confess what he knew, the grand jury presentment states otherwise – “[t]he graduate assistant was never questioned by University Police and no other police entity conducted an investigation until he testified in Grand Jury in December 2010.”

What police determined over the next 12 months, after talking to McQueary and the mother, eventually lead to interviews of Victims 3, 4, 5, and 7 by November 2011.  Victims 9 and 10 were added based on hot-line calls.   However, court documents filed by Sandusky's attorneys make references to accusers 11 through 18. 

It is possible that Victims 11 through 17 were really Victims 2 through 9 – children who the police found based on leads from Aaron Fisher - but cases got "lost" in the OAG's office's game of "musical state troopers" early in the investigation. 

Months passed with no victims being identified, then the OAG got a lucky break when Centre County DA Stacy Parks Miller tipped them about McQueary’s chat room exploits.   The OAG finally had the case it wanted -- against Graham Spanier and Penn State. 

Prosecutors focus on a “pattern”

The police told The Patriot-News that prosecutors would not file charges that don’t fit into the pattern they’ve already established.  

Which pattern would that be?

Victim 6’s mom said her son, who was was denied justice once in 1998, was almost denied justice a second time when the AG told her they were not going to file charges for the 1998 incident. 

“The state cop fought for them,” she said. “I heard it got heated, but he stood his ground because he said my son was the cornerstone of the whole case and how they got the other football boys.”

Based on the mother’s statement, the police had established a pattern for Jerry Sandusky’s abuse before they interviewed her and her son’s abuse - a pre-pubescent boy showering with Sandusky - did not fit the pattern.

The investigation started with a report of abuse by a teenager who was abused in his early teen years and the abuse continued until he was fifteen.  If Victim 6, who was 11 years old at the time of abuse, didn’t fit the pattern, then there must have been other victims, likely in puberty or in their teens that had been abused and identified to prosecutors.  

As documented in the grand jury presentment and from the trial, Victims 1, 4, and 9 were all teenagers when the abuse occurred.  Sandusky's abuse of Victim 4, that included oral sex and attempts at anal penetration, occurred over a period of years, in which Sandusky took him on overnight stays at Toftrees prior to football games and also took him to the 1998 Outback Bowl and the 1999 Alamo Bowl.  At trial, Sandusky's letters to Victim 1 were deemed to be similar to letters that would by typical of a relationship between two teenagers.  Sandusky performed oral sex on Victim 1 many times and likewise, Victim 1 did so to Sandusky.  Victim 9 stated that Sandusky attempted to engage in anal penetration on at least 16 occasions and at times did penetrate him.

Pedophile behavior is well documented and it is very likely that Sandusky’s preferred victims were teenagers.  The younger boys were being groomed for later abuse.

Testimony by retired state police Corporal Joseph Leiter, stated that Victim 4 at first refused to talk to police.  "He curled up in the fetal position on the end of his couch."  Victim 4 was 27 years old when Leiter conducted that interview.  It is reasonable to conclude that these were the victims that suffered the worst of the sexual abuse from Jerry Sandusky. 

The PA State Police Investigation Avoids Second Mile/Sandusky's Home

The Patriot News stated the discovery of the 1998 University Park Police report was the big break in the case.  However, according the the Freeh Report (page 83), the state police obtained the report on January 3, 2011 -- over two years into the investigation.  By that time all of the victims but one (Victim 8) had been identified. 

Records also show that the state police did not obtain a search warrant for the Second Mile files until January 2011 -- over two years into the investigation.  It is beyond credulity that the state police, who were investigating the founder and face of Second Mile, and whose victims were participants in Second Mile programs, did not get a warrant for Second Mile at the outset of the investigation. 

In July 2011, the AG's office filed a motion to hold Second Mile in contempt for not producing files requested through a secret grand jury subpoena.   The AG's office dropped the contempt motion in October 2011, when Second Mile produced some of the files from the early 2000s.  Other files remained missing.  A subpoena for their financial records wasn’t delivered until after Sandusky was charged on Nov. 4, 2011. 

Records also show that the state police did not get a search warrant for Sandusky's residence until June 21, 2011.  Nearly three years after the beginning of the investigation, and more than seven months after acknowledging that they had Sandusky on 400 counts of child abuse.  Again, it is well documented that pedophiles engage in the trading, distribution, and selling of child pornography over the internet, as well as use it to introduce their child victims to sexual experiences.  In 1998, Victim 6 stated that Sandusky offered to take him to his house were he had a “cool computer” and he “could sit on his lap and they could go on-line.”  The police had access to this report, as it was attached to the 1998 PSU police report, yet they waited six months to get the warrant for Sandusky's home (and his computer).

Based on information from a source on the Second Mile staff, state police did not search the offices of Second Mile or interview Second Mile staff employees from 2008 to January 2012.  

The mother of Victim 6 could not have been more right, “This whole thing just stinks so much more than we all know.”

Except that now we’re finding out.

Updated 12/6/2012

2001 Freeh Framing - Strange Evidence & Fiction

By Barry Bozeman        When Linda Kelly stood before the public on Nov 7 with pictures of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz beside Jerry Sandusky and read the horrific charges against one and perjury charges against the other's you may not have decided that Tim and Gary were guilty of perjury.. But that made it easy for Louis Freeh to further prejudice us with his report saying Schultz tried to hide a "secret file" or leaking email that supposedly supported the claims of the prosecution. 

TSM Pedophile Ring Feared Joe Paterno

Victor Thorn does an interview with Greg Bucceroni - the man most responsible for the stories about a pedophile ring involving Sandusky and The Second Mile. In this interview Bucceroni who is cooperating with various law enforcement agencies is very descriptive about events in 1977 thru the early 80's when TSM was in it's infancy and he was driven to State College by Edward Savitz to participate in some of the 'get togethers' at the very start of The Second Mile. 

Bucceroni describes "the way it worked" and how the boys were introduced to wealthy and 'powerful' men who were interested in sexual behavior with them. 

One thing Mr. Bucceroni makes clear in this interview is that Joe Paterno was never a part of this in any way. 

"We were told to be on our best behavior if Joe Paterno ever showed up at any of these fund raisers. The men involved did not want anything getting back to Paterno about any questionable behavior." 

Bucceroni states the pedophiles would be touching them, placing their hands on their knees or rubbing their backs, until the word came Paterno was about to arrive.  At that point, they backed off completely and played it straight.

The Thorn - Bucceroni interview is in two parts and a good deal of the discussion involving the instructions on behavior around Joe Paterno starts around the 14 min mark of the first interview. HERE 
Part 2 of the interview goes into Bucceroni's cooperation with Law Enforcement including the FBI among other things. The two interview segments run about 35 minutes. 

Altered E-mail Found in Freeh Report Contains Damaging Info About DPW's Role in 1998 Investigation

"Insider" left trails of evidence suggesting Freeh and others are covering for DPW’s failure

by

Ray Blehar

Part I: The Insider

Louis Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel’s (SIC) diverse “membership included men and women with extensive legal, law enforcement and child protection backgrounds who were experienced in conducting independent, complex, and unbiased investigations.” 

---

Apparently one of these individuals chose to be more unbiased than the rest of the group. This person may have been a strong advocate for preventing child abuse, thus he/she would want the public to know which organization really needs to improve how they do business. 

Note: This is not the leaker of the e-mails prior to release of the report.

This individual took advantage of Freeh’s lack of knowledge and experience with e-mail and PSU’s agreement not to review the document before publication, to alter e-mails, insert evidence Exhibits and text at or near the last editorial review of the report that points the finger at DPW for dropping the ball in 1998 and how PSU officials (beyond the four identified) were complicit in covering for DPW.  The most damaging evidence includes:

• A DPW e-mail on 13 May 1998, just 10 days into the investigation, informing PSU that they wanted to “resolve the matter quickly.” (Exhibit 2B)
• Exhibits 2H and 2I, indicating 14 signs of suspected child abuse that were uncovered on the first two days of the investigation and turned over to DPW on May 5^th. This exhibit also contained the first name of the other child and the name of the apartments in which he lived.
• Tom Harmon providing an update to Gary Schultz in which he expresses concern over DPW’s role in the investigation due to a conflict of interest with Second Mile. (Page 49)
• Exhibit 6A, an affidavit from former PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, who does not identify DPW as having a role in the 1998 investigation, yet reviewed the 1998 University Park Police Report that clearly identified DPW and Lauro. 

The clues left behind by the insider included: the odd numbering scheme of Appendix A that was ordered 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10; footnotes referencing exhibits that were out of sequence; turning the pages in Exhibit 2H and 2I on their sides; and including exhibits that provide information that undermines Freeh's findings rather than supporting them. 

Part II: Chronology of time and date stamps

Page 11 of the Freeh Report states: The University Staff provided a large volume of raw data from computer systems, individual computers and communication devices. The Special Investigative Counsel performed forensic analysis of this raw data independent of the University Staff. 

This sounds great in theory, but did not work well in practice.
On Exhibit 2B from the Freeh Report below I have added two arrows  labeled “A” pointing out the date stamps that are out of order. Chronology of e-mail either flows up the page or down the page. If you go to Exhibit 2C (farther down the page) of the Freeh Report, you’ll see a more correct, but not complete, flow of e-mail between Curley and Schultz regarding the updates. 

Conclusion A: Exhibit 2B is not raw data and has been altered. This e-mail was examined by government computer security and cyber experts who confirmed it was altered.  It is also a signal that other e-mail evidence may be altered. 

The more critical piece of evidence is at “B,” which states that DPW has decided to resolve this quickly. This e-mail was sent just days after the DPW brought in an unlicensed counselor, John Seasock, to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of the Victim 6. It was three weeks before DPW investigator Jerry Lauro finally got around to interviewing Sandusky.

The conclusion that inclusion of this e-mail is the work of an “insider” is drawn from the fact that the footnote referencing it as the source to the passage “coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Exhibit 2C, below, could have been used to source the information about “coach is anxious” because it provides a more correct, but not complete, chain of correspondence between Curley and Schultz. 

Conclusion B: Exhibit 2B serves the purpose of leaking damaging information about DPW (that Freeh did not explore otherwise in the text of the report). 

Part III: “Landscape” Notes Contain Signs of Abuse/Child’s First Name

The other evidence that the insider(s) placed to get the reader’s attention are Exhibits 2H and 2I that were place in “landscape” format in Appendix 2. The remainder are in “portrait” layout or as you would routinely read a page of a book. Mostly, people flip through an appendix, if they read it at all, therefore the “landscape” layout was there to make the reader stop and look. While the handwriting is difficult to read (translated here), it ends up that 14 signs of abuse, plus the first name of the other child are revealed on those pages. The information in those pages was revealed to DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro, when he took over the case from John Miller of CYS. It was a part of Det Schreffler's police report. 

Conclusion C: The insider likely made this change at the last minute, as evidenced by 2H being the first of the exhibits footnoted in the text. The order of the footnotes is 2H, 2A, 2I, and so on. Exhibits 2H and 2I provide exculpatory evidence in terms of PSU officials being responsible for concealing Sandusky’s behavior from the public. PSU officials were not trained investigators of child abuse. The DPW and CYS investigators had the training to recognize the evidence and know Sandusky exhibited sighs of grooming children for abuse as Dr Chambers reported.

Part IV: Tom Harmon’s Concern about DPW and Second Mile

In 1998, Penn State Director of Public Safety, Tom Harmon had the role of relaying information from Detective Schreffler to Gary Schultz. What went up the flagpole to Schultz is likely not the full and complete accounting of the facts, but what Harmon thought Schultz needed to know about the investigation of Sandusky. One of the things Harmon relayed to Schultz was his concern about DPW’s role in the investigation and a potential conflict of interest with Second Mile.

"Harmon continued to provide Schultz with information about DPW's role and their potential conflict of interest with the Second Mile."Harmon provided an update to Schultz on May 8, 1998 reporting that Lauro "indicated that it was his intent to have a psychologist who specializes in child abuse interview the children. This is expected to occur in the next week to week and a half. I don't anticipate anything to be done until that happens."　

According to the Freeh Report (page 49) it was the local CYS that had the conflict of interest with Second Mile.   Both CYS and DPW had conflict of interest issues with Second Mile. Both were receiving services that reduced the burden on state and local tax coffers. But the real reason Lauro was assigned to the case was because DPW was responding to the Child Abuse Hotline Call from Dr. Alycia Chambers. Hotlines and customer service lines all work the same. You call, get a number, and someone resolves the problem. Jerry Lauro was assigned to take care of the incident – it was that simple.

Freeh’s group twists and contorts the facts about Alycia Chambers’ report. On May 4^th, 1998, Chambers interviewed the mother of Victim 6 and her child, who she had been seeing for some time before the incident. Chambers knew that Victim 6 was not a foster child. Freeh has made this up out of whole cloth. Freeh mentions a referral sheet about this foster child but does not provide this "referral sheet" (Freeh at 43) 

“ However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case” (e.g., CYS had various contracts with Second Mile - including placement of children in a Second Mile residential program?" the Second Mile's executive director had a contract with CYS to conduct children's evaluations?’ and the referral sheet from Chambers indicated the case might involve a foster child).°"In light of these conflicts, the Department of Public Welfare (“DPW") took over the case from CYS on May 5. DPW officials in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania took the lead because of Sandusky's high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro.”

Conclusion D: These lines of text could easily be slipped in by the insider without Freeh or anyone on his team catching it – and its and important piece of information about DPW’s interest in strongly pursuing the case. It’s worth repeating that Freeh’s story on DPW taking over the case due to a conflict of interest is false.

Part V: Altered police report from 1998

 Detective Ronald Schreffler compiled the police report in chronological order of events and in meticulous detail. The first eight pages are numbered, 1 of 8, 2 of 8, and so on, up to 8, but after that the pages are not numbered, with the exception of two pages relating to one of the stings set up for Sandusky.

Careful examination of the police report, reveals that the police report was altered. More specifically, several dates and times appear to be out of sequence in the timeline of events surrounding Jerry Lauro’s scheduling of the interview of the “psychologist” who would evaluate the child now known as Victim 6. The cant of the minutes 57 and 55, as well as the 5 at the solid arrow indicate that they were cut and pasted into position off a hard copy, then re-imaged (scanned to a pdf). Finally, the time of Schreffler’s pick-up of the psychiatric report from Alycia Chambers was does not fit chronologically. 

Conclusion E: DPW was calling the shots in the investigation, as evidenced by Karen Arnold stating on May 7^th to hold off, then DPW moving forward a day later. May 5^th was the first day Lauro worked the case, thus the changed date (from May 8 to May 5 doesn’t fit). The changes to the times on May 8^th do not fit the chronology of events. Further investigation required

Part VI: Baldwin’s Affidavit Recalling 1998 Police Report

On January 3^rd, 2011, University Park Police officials provided the Pennsylvania State Police with a copy of the 1998 police report.

Upon learning of this, former PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin also requested and reviewed a copy of the police report, which includes details of the roles of CYS, DPW, the University Police and the District Attorney’s office. Baldwin who previously came under fire earlier for her dual representation of PSU and defendants Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, was asked to brief the PSU Board of Trustees in May 2011. Baldwin’s affidavit of January 16, 2012 (Exhibit 6A, below) states the many things she briefed to the BOT, but omits that DPW had a role in the investigation. 

 

Conclusion F: January 2012 may be a year or so removed from Baldwin’s first review of the 1998 police report, however the Grand Jury Presentment was released just months earlier and only mentioned DPW as the child abuse investigative agency. Is this an oversight by Baldwin or is it intentional? It is more likely the latter, given Baldwin’s dual representation issue at the grand jury.

Did PSU and Paterno get railroaded?  

The evidence leaked in the report by insider, and other evidence omitted, such as the police report and Chambers psychology report, (i.e., missing Exhibits 1 and 4) are indications that Louis Freeh’s group started an investigation with two predetermined conclusions (by design): 

1) Find what PSU officials did wrong in responding to child abuse allegations by Sandusky, and make sure everyone knows about it;

2) Ignore what everyone else did wrong, even if it what they did was worse than PSU, and do your best to make sure no one knows about it.

It is clear to anyone who has taken the time to fully examine the evidence in this case, that DPW could have and should have stopped Sandusky in 1998.

If DPW had done so, there would have been no 2001 shower incident for Mike McQueary to see and report to Joe Paterno. Obviously, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley would not have been involved either.

It appears more and more likely that Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley got railroaded to cover up for DPWs failure in 1998. It also appears that some of the operators of this railroad include PSU Counsel Cynthia Baldwin and PSU Special Task Force co-chairs Kenneth Frazier and Ronald J. Tomalis, among others, who were part of the group that decided to bring in Louis Freeh to drive nails into the coffin.

So, the remaining question is “why?” 

Just follow the money.