CNN's and NBC's Yellow Journalism

After the Patriot News' yellow journalism about 1976, CNN and NBC followed with similar uncorroborated stories that were "too good to check."

By
Ray Blehar

Penn State President Eric Barron responded to the latest media attacks on the University by issuing a statement chastising them for rushing to judgment and publishing sensationalized stories.

The most important passages of his statement bear repeating (my emphasis added):

"....over the last two days we have worked to be diligent in reanalyzing the record of reports and depositions to ensure that our reactions and comments are both responsible and trustworthy. 

First, the allegations related to Penn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them. 

Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report. Others cite assistant coaches that were witnesses or had knowledge – stating it as fact in headlines and text – even in the face of a denial and clear failure to corroborate from the individuals allegedly involved. Other stories are clearly incredulous, and should be difficult for any reasonable person to believe. We should not be rendering judgments about the actions of Coach Paterno or any other former employees of Penn State based on incomplete, sensationalized media accounts.

While Barron did not get into the details, his description that these accounts are "incredulous" and "difficult for any reasonable person to believe" were 100 percent accurate.  That two national media outlets like CNN and NBC would allow these stories to be run demonstrates how far both individual and organizational ethics have fallen.

Yellow Journalism by Sara Ganim, CNN

Sara Ganim’s column regarding an alleged 1971 child sex abuse incident that was allegedly reported to Joe Paterno should serve as reminder of why she won a Pulitzer Prize for LOCAL (not investigative) about the “Penn State Scandal.”  

Ganim covered scandal over a year and knew that Sandusky was an acquaintance offender who befriended pre-teen boys and groomed them for victimization.    In the latest article, she mentions victims being hesitant to come forward as a result of their "close relationships" with Sandusky.  As such, she obviously knew that her story of Sandusky picking up a 15 year old hitchhiker, plying him with drugs and alcohol, and forcibly raping him was not consistent with Sandusky’s modus operandi.   

The story continued on its incredulous path by then stating when the foster parents of the youth (dubbed Victim A) found out, they directed him to call high-ranking Penn State officials -- then told the youth that Penn State wouldn't call the police.  

If these foster parents understood that, why didn't they call the police themselves?   

"So many good things"

In what is surely a fabrication, the alleged Victim A states that he called the University and took part in a conference call with  Joe Paterno and a man named Jim.   

After allegedly telling them he was raped by Sandusky, he alleged Paterno and Jim threatened to call the authorities on him because they couldn't believe an attack could have come from a man who "did so many good things." 

The year was 1971 and Sandusky had joined the coaching staff in 1969.  He was an unheralded position coach then, and most importantly, would form his Second Mile charity six years later (in 1977).

In short, Sandusky wasn't famous in the community for his charitable work in 1971.

 This adds more evidence of a fabricated story.

Unreliable Source

However, Ganim attempted to bolster this ridiculous story by using well known Paterno-hater, Bernie McCue, as the corroborating source.  

She had to know her corroborating witness would not be viewed as an unbiased/credible source, as he was featured in the movie Happy Valley conducting a pathetic one-man protest at the Paterno statue.  

McCue also had other anti-Paterno actions in his past, including writing derogatory and offensive notes in the courtesy newspapers and magazines provided at the Corner Room, then returning them for other patrons to find.  

He was also arrested for harassment regarding an incident allegedly over Peachy Paterno ice cream being served at the Berkey Creamery.  

According to source McCue, the alleged victim told him about the abuse in 1972.  McCue was 33 or 34 years old when he got the report from the 15-16 year old victim.   How did McCue explain coming in contact with the victim?  Ganim doesn't say.

More than likely, she didn't think to check those facts and ask the question.  However, it does raise an interesting question about McCue and his motivations.  

As the old saying goes, "the guilty dog barks the loudest."

In summary, no investigative reporter would ever use a questionable source like Bernie McCue, which is consistent with the fact that Ganim is NOT an investigative reporter.

While Ganim's incompetence is evident, how was it that the editors at CNN weren't asking these questions about her incredulous story?

The only credible part of Ganim's story came at the end, where a state trooper recalled thinking the story was "too crazy to be believed."

Yellow Journalism by NBC

On May 8th, an NBC story, citing mostly unnamed sources, stated unequivocally that as many as six Penn State coaches had witnessed Sandusky's "inappropriate behavior" with children.

In fact, the article later stated that none of these incidents were corroborated, as a lawyer for one coach refuted the allegation, one coach refused to comment,  one couldn't be reached, and the other is unknown.

NBC then referenced a report by Sandusky's adopted son, Matthew, that he was informed that a coach saw him being molested by Sandusky in a PSU locker room.

In Matthew Sandusky's recently released book, Undaunted, he told the story of how Jerry Sandusky was able to hide in plain sight and abuse children while in the presence of other, unwitting adults. 

On page 10, Matthew specifically recalled a "wrestling" incident in which he was being fondled, but Sandusky stopped the fondling when he heard the door's cipher code being pressed, alerting them to someone entering the room.  According to Matthew's account, Jerry then asked the assistant coach who walked in to do a three count as Jerry pretended to "pin" Matthew.   

Numerous victims at the trial mentioned Sandusky wrestling with them as part of their "workouts."

Those familiar with the case also know that Victim 4 also mentioned the cipher code noise being used as a signal by Sandusky to disengage in whatever inappropriate conduct that was ongoing.



Sex crimes expert James Clemente also noted that, in his experience, many serial child molesters were experts in utilizing abuse techniques that provided them with plausible deniability. According to trial testimony, Sandusky used techniques such wrestling matches, tickling, blowing raspberries on the boy's stomachs as a means of accomplishing this. 




All of the information above is readily available on the public record.  NBC knew or should have known that Sandusky was able to avoid detection even when abusing boys in plain sight.  As such, the coaches observing Sandusky and the child likely had no idea anything "inappropriate" was occurring.

Finally, it bears repeating that none of these claims were corroborated by the coaches who were alleged to have observed "inappropriate behavior" and that Penn State issued a statement that there is no evidence supporting the claims.

Clicks

The bottom line is that CNN and NBC weren't interested in accuracy and had stories that were "too good to check."  As Jay Paterno wrote, they are part of a media who is only interested in "clicks." 

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

The Sandusky case was sent to a grand jury so that the investigation would die a slow, secret death

By
Ray Blehar

While the Moulton Report found no direct evidence that former Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) and one-term Governor Tom Corbett influenced the Sandusky investigation, it absolutely concluded the investigation was slow walked.  

While the report may not have used those exact words, Special Deputy AG Geoffrey Moulton and AG Kathleen Kane instead used "inexplicable" and "inexcusable,' respectively,  to describe the delays in the investigation.

Kane was right.  The delays were "inexcusable."

Moulton was wrong.  The delays were not "inexplicable."

Kane's mistake not to clean house upon taking office resulted in the evidence that would have explained the delays being excluded from Moulton's report.  

That evidence would have shown that Frank "moral responsibility" Noonan's did his best to derail the initial investigation and that when it landed in Corbett's lap, the AG was going to let the Sandusky case die a slow, secret death inside the grand jury.


The Evidence
The following evidence of the investigator's failure to follow leads and conduct routine investigative work was known to Moulton's team but not included in the report.

Failure to Find Victim 9

During the first twenty months of the investigation,  the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and OAG were completely reliant upon Aaron Fisher (Victim 1), Dawn Daniels, and Central Mountain High School officials to generate leads.  

As the investigation languished, the AG and PSP failed to investigate the first lead about other victims ever provided by Fisher, who provided the first names of two young men who had highly unusual first names beginning with the letter "S."

Fisher provided that information at his initial interview on November 20, 2008.  

It is unclear whether or not Trooper Cavanaugh included that information in his police report that eventually made its way to the OAG.  However, it is obvious that Cavanaugh didn't attempt to find Victim 9, as that would have required contacting The Second Mile (TSM) to find out the child's last name.

TSM wasn't contacted about the investigation until January 2011. 

According to the Moulton Report, the investigation went cold in March 2010 and nothing happened until October.   Typically, when an investigation goes cold, it is common practice to go back to square one and review all of the existing evidence with the hopes of uncovering something that was missed.  

That didn't happen.

In fact, the investigators did not go back to Clinton County CYS until June 27, 2011.

The search warrant Sandusky's home was approved one week before the investigators visited Clinton County CYS.   On June 22nd, the investigators finally searched Sandusky's home.

According to the trial testimony of AG Agent Anthony Sassano, a list of the names of participants of The Second Mile was found in Sandusky's home.  Victim 9's name, his mother's first name, and his phone number was on the participant list. 

Despite investigators having that considerable evidence that could have led them to Victim 9, they never followed up.

In November 2011, the assistant principal of the boy's school called the hotline after the news of the Sandusky charges hit the papers.

As it turned out, Victim 9 was repeatedly abused while the investigation lagged.  

Failure to Find Victim 10

Along those same lines, one of the lists from Sandusky's PSU office generated the name of Victim 10.  His name was  marked with an asterisk, like some of the other victims who were presented as witnesses at the trial.  

Victim 10, who had a long criminal record,  was incarcerated in at State Correctional Institution - Albion, serving 22 months for robbery until July 2009.  He had a prior arrest in 2004 for burglary. 

Apparently, Noonan's crack team of cops and Corbett's AG investigators didn't think to check for arrest records of former participants of a charity for troubled and at-risk youth.   

Four of the eight witnesses/victims presented at Sandusky trial had arrest records prior to being identified by police.

Those records were not used to find them -- and those facts were excluded from the Moulton Report.

Inexplicable delays?  Certainly not.  

This was turning a blind eye to evidence and not conducting the most basic investigative work.


The Moulton Report revealed that NO investigative activity occurred for ten of the first twenty months of the investigation.  

The Sandusky investigation was put in the grand jury to die. 

And it almost did -- until Corbett decided to use the Sandusky investigation to take out former PSU President Graham Spanier.

Until the Spanier flap, Corbett was letting the clock run out on the investigation

Coming Soon:  Keystone Corruption & Corbett's Politically Motivated Prosecutions

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 2

If Corbett's assertion that the AG needed a grand jury to prove a cover-up was true, then the outcome for the former one-term governor is even worse

By
Ray Blehar

For Corbett, if his statement was true
then he confessed to foot-dragging.

While the official facts in evidence refute former Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) and former Governor Tom Corbett's statement about needing a grand jury to coerce testimony and prove a cover-up, the irony is that if his statement was true, it is an admission of not investigating a cover up and/or foot-dragging on the investigation for political reasons.


As noted here, the facts in evidence were that the AG's office didn't find another victim to corroborate Aaron Fisher allegations until January 2011. 

If there wasn't evidence of more than one victim --and that Fisher reported Sandusky to the authorities -- then there was no evidence that supported a cover-up.

But what if Corbett was telling the truth?  In this case, the truth is worse than a lie.

Under one of the "truth" scenarios, the AG's office may have had a hunch that the reason the other young men that were interviewed didn't disclose abuse was because some person or persons had provided them with some material incentive not to talk.  

While it is possible that victims may have been physically threatened,  the only known victim, Fisher, came forward without fear of physical harm in November 2008.   And, like the other eventual victims, Fisher received gifts from Sandusky, such as new clothes, computers, and sports equipment.   

In short, the most likely suspect in a cover-up scenario would have been none other than the perpetrator, Jerry Sandusky.  

The Jerry Sandusky Non-Investigation

According to the Moulton Report, there is no evidence that the investigation searched Sandusky's personal records to verify purchases or to check for cash (ATM) withdrawals -- his bank account and credit card records were not subpoenaed.  

Fisher also stated he attended sporting events, such as Eagles and Browns National Football League (NFL) games with Sandusky, sometimes in the company of other children.  

Here's where the story gets interesting. 

In late 2009, Dawn Daniels claimed that she was offered free Philadelphia Eagles box seat season tickets.  In the book, Silent No More (p. 117), Mike Gillum noted that a man named "John" from the Eagles, who knew that Aaron had attended games and had set the tickets aside for them. 

At the time of the alleged offer, Sandusky's adopted son, Jon, worked for the Eagles.  He would later get a job with the Browns.

The AG "investigated" the Eagles ticket allegation and took the word of the Eagles -- that the family misunderstood and were being asked to purchase tickets.  Right -- because the Eagles routinely phone housing projects in search of prospective season ticket purchasers.  

In the one instance where a possible cover-up/payoff scenario was alleged, it appeared to be investigated pro forma and dismissed.  The "John" - "Jon" connection wasn't made.

If Sandusky was the prime suspect, then the first information subpoenaed about him were his employment records -- requested on January 7, 2010. That was almost seven months into the investigation and employment records would not provide evidence  of a cover-up.  

In fact, in the inexplicable Sandusky investigation, the evidence apparently reveals that the AG didn't consider Sandusky could have been a suspect for covering up his own crimes! 

But don't expect Bumsted or the rest of the media to figure this stuff out.

News reporters, most without any knowledge of the case, might propose that Corbett and the AG suspected that officials at Central Mountain High School (CMHS) or from The Second Mile (TSM) were behind the alleged cover-up.

Under those scenarios, there is also a dearth of evidence of even a half-hearted cover-up investigation.


CMHS Non-Investigation
According to the Moulton Report, the only CMHS individual interviewed by the police -- prior to July 28, 2011 -- was assistant principal and head football coach, Steven Turchetta.   Again, Corbett said he needed the grand jury to coerce testimony.  

Who was being coerced?  Turchetta was a cooperating witness.

Certainly, there is no evidence on the record supporting a cover-up investigation of CMHS.

The Non-Investigation of The Second Mile
Geoffrey Moulton used the word "inexplicable" to explain the delays in getting warrants for Sandusky's home and making an arrest.   However, that same word applies to the Pennsylvania State Police's (PSP) failure to interview individuals and gather evidence from The Second Mile (TSM) as a means of identifying potential victims.

Moreover, if there was an organization that should have been suspected of covering up Sandusky's crimes, TSM should have been at the top of the list.  Sandusky was the organizations founder, face, and top fundraiser. 

As history shows, without Sandusky, TSM could not exist.  

Even if the PSP didn't understand the financial incentive for a TSM cover-up, they had plenty of leads that should have caused them to visit the charity early in the investigation.   The first seven people interviewed by the PSP all mentioned Sandusky's association with TSM and his work in mentoring young men.  

The PSP continued to investigate the case when it was ensconced  in the grand jury.  

In August 2009, F.A., a former CMHS student, testified to the grand jury about being a TSM participant and being in the car with Fisher and Sandusky.   Following F.A.'s testimony, Agent Anthony Sassano drafted a list of investigative steps that excluded contacting anyone associated with the charity.  In reading the email below, the incompetency of Sassano is evident -- and likely explains why he was assigned to the case.

Even if Sassano was incompetent, he was being overseen by a seasoned prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach, who had prosecuted many sexual abuse cases.  Eshbach should have been the "backstop" that made sure investigators didn't miss anything.

Instead, it appeared that Eshbach was equally avoiding investigating TSM, as this request for subpoena reveals the gymnastics that had to be undertaken to not request records from the charity, but justify a request to Penn State.

It is notable that Eshbach and the AG had "some suspicion" -- based on no evidence on the official record -- that PSU had knowledge of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with children. 

More on that in a second.

In summary, the evidence shows that if Corbett and the AG suspected a cover-up, then it failed to investigate any of the most probable suspects until 2011.  Based on the official record of evidence, the Sandusky grand jury was not investigating a cover-up or coercing any witness testimony.

Suppressed Evidence Equals Electoral Foot-Dragging or Worse
Eshbach's subpoena request is among the earliest official records indicating the AG may have obtained information about the PSU incidents earlier than November 2010.

The unofficial record may help fill in the blanks.

Mike Gillum, in Silent No More (p. 120), stated that on June 16, 2009,  Eshbach and Trooper Scott Rossman "indicated there was some other evidence they weren't at liberty to share with me.  It was something that happened in 1998."

While the official record states the 1998 University Park police report was not obtained until January 3, 2011, Gillum's account reveals that the AG got its hands on the 1998 report much earlier -- in fact, it appears that they possessed it around the time of the grand jury began.

If that was really the case, then Corbett might have been telling the truth about using the grand jury to prove a cover-up.  Except there's a problem with the 1998 police report.

It doesn't provide evidence or suspicion of a cover-up by PSU.

In fact, it shows the opposite because PSU immediately reached out to the DA's office and Centre County CYS to assist with the 1998 investigation.

That leads to the highly probable scenario that if Corbett suspected a PSU cover-up, then he had knowledge of the 2001 incident when the grand jury was convened.

The fact that the anonymous email tip on the incident showed up the day after Corbett was elected governor provides additional evidence that he was sitting on that evidence until after the election.

In summary, the circumstantial evidence in the case indicates that foot-dragging on the Sandusky case was politically motivated.  It also indicates that the AG could have found victims and made Sandusky's arrest much sooner. 

But arresting Sandusky wasn't part of the original plan -- and that's really why the foot-dragging occurred.  

The Sandusky investigation was supposed to die a slow, secret death in the grand jury.

Next: Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie

Former AG Tom Corbett's rationale for the inpaneling of the Sandusky grand jury in 2009 doesn't square with the facts in evidence

By

Ray Blehar

As I was reading Brad Bumsted's "Keystone Corruption, A Pennsylvania Insiders Guide to a State Gone Wrong" last week, I  came across an interesting statement attributed to Tom Corbett on page 196 about his reasoning behind using use of a grand jury in the Sandusky case.

Corbett's grand jury rationale
doesn't square with the facts.

"Corbett said the grand jury was needed to compel testimony and because of the complexity of proving a cover-up."

That statement doesn't square with the facts.

On May 1st 2009, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General submitted the Sandusky investigation to the Thirtieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.  On May 5th, the case was accepted.

According to evidence, Aaron Fisher was the only known victim until the eventual Victim 6 was identified in January 2011.  Moreover, according to the Moulton Report (page 148), in August 2010, Corbett agreed with other prosecutors that the case shouldn't be charged due to the lack of victims.

Early August 2010. Fina, Sheetz, and Ryan meet with Corbett to discuss the status of the Sandusky investigation. Corbett affirms their recommendation that the case should not then be charged and that the search for other victims should continue. 

Corbett's response to the Moulton Report, filed by his attorney Mark Zimmer on June 11, 2014, did not provide a reason for using a grand jury, other than it was a choice made by "career prosecutors."  

More importantly, however,  the response stated that the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to justify a search warrant for Sandusky's home until police interviewed Victim 7 (February 2011) and Victim 4 (April 2011) -- who provided the "fresh evidence" to justify a search warrant.

There are several credibility issues associated with the Corbett response.   Notably, the "fresh evidence" obtained in 2011 pertained incidents that occurred in Sandusky's home from 1996 through 2000, thus were of incidents five to thirteen years earlier than those reported by Fisher.   

Next, if this "fresh evidence" of "use of his residence for pedophilia" provided the basis for an airtight search warrant, then why did it take until June 20, 2011 to request it?

Finally, and most importantly, if there was not sufficient evidence to justify a search warrant of Sandusky's home until the spring of 2011, then Corbett's assertion that the Sandusky grand jury was inpaneled to prove a cover-up was a lie.

But don't expect an "insider" and ace reporter like Brad Bumsted to ever figure that out.

Feudale Confirms Sham Case vs. PSU 3

Feudale appears to confirm OAG wasn't going to prosecute the case against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz and that he is part of the Conspiracy of Silence that endangers children.

By

Ray Blehar

A July 14, 2013 email from Barry Feudale to the Inky's "corruption defenders" - Angela Couloumbis and Craig McCoy - appears to confirm that the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) prosecutors had no intention of trying former Penn State University (PSU) officials.

During the Sandusky trial, prosecutor Joseph McGettigan told Judge Cleland that "we're not going to try that case."  Feudale's emails shows he also got word that the prosecution of the PSU 3 was unlikely.

As I wrote here, Rod Erickson's notebook confirmed that it was Fina's intention to use the trumped up charges against Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz to get one or both to flip on former PSU President Graham Spanier.

PS4RS: Heim's letter proves no cover up at PSU

This letter to the editor appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review on October 9th, 2015

A coin toss is often used to resolve a dispute. Last week’s Penn State-Army coin toss certainly did just that, but the dispute was far from the playing field. When news broke that Bruce Heim, former board member of The Second Mile was chosen to take part in a ceremonious pregame coin toss, Penn State alumni and supporters voiced disapproval. The invitation was swiftly revoked. But make no mistake: as a result of Heim’s public acknowledgement that he had been made aware of the 2001 Sandusky incident, a major dispute was resolved. 

There was no “Conspiracy of Silence" at Penn State.

 

In several different reports last week, Heim indicated that it was his decision to keep The Second Mile board in the dark when former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley notified then-TSM CEO Jack Raykovitz in 2001 that Jerry Sandusky – a TSM employee -- had been seen showering with a boy in the Lasch Building.

 

Tim Curley not only followed reporting rules, he exceeded them, according to a 2001 statute. Raykovitz, however, as a mandatory reporter, ignored TSM’s legal obligations and did nothing to pursue the report.

 

It has never been a matter of a coin toss for the members of Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship. We’ve continually questioned why Penn State administrators have been held responsible for mistakes made by The Second Mile. With no clear case against these Penn State officials, PS4RS calls for the Office of the Attorney General to drop charges against them.

 

Maribeth Roman Schmidt

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship
Email: mschmidt@ps4rs.org
Cell: 215.620.4210

TSM's 2001 Decision Driven By Money

The Second Mile's demise began after Sandusky's abuse became known in 2009 and it collapsed when his abuse allegations went public in 2011.   It is likely that Heim suspected the same would happen in 2001 - if the word got out about Sandusky.

By
Ray Blehar

I've used the term "elephant in the room" quite a bit in this scandal.   However, for the Sandusky scandal it is more like the herd of elephants in the room.

In November 2011, many people who read the grand jury presentment immediately saw the elephant -- if not two or three -- in the room.  The media apparently wasn't as astute or were influenced not to look, because the following were pretty obvious:

Elephant #1:   The illogical situation that PSU officials, who were not mandated reporters, were charged with failure to report child abuse but The Second Mile's  Dr. Jack Raykovitz, a mandated reporter, wasn't. 

Elephant #2:  The illogical situation that Penn State was accused of covering up for a retired football coach, who had nothing to do with the football program, but somehow TSM wasn't accused of covering up for its founder, face, and top fundraiser.

Elephant #3:  That irrational argument that giant Penn State University (PSU) couldn't weather the storm of bad publicity surrounding a Sandusky abuse investigation and somehow the same scenario didn't apply the charity.

Shockingly, throughout this almost four year ordeal, no one in the media has made the case that TSM had more incentive to cover up than PSU did -- but history, and money, tells the story.

Financial Incentive

TSM's financial records from 2008 to 2012 go a long way in explaining why Bruce Heim may have advised Raykovitz to not report the 2001 incident to the full board of TSM and why neither man reported the incident to child protective services.

They both knew the importance of Sandusky to the charity and if word got out about his penchant for showering with boys, the charity would have gone under -- or maybe worse. 

Board of Director$ Not Told

According to a former Board member, the charity had a goal of 100% director financial support for each event.  Thus if Board members didn't share Heim's view that an adult showering with boys was "normal" behavior, they might abandon the charity.  

And who would want to be associated with a charity that approved of its founder showering with kids?

In addition, the Directors were very influential in getting other well-to-do individuals to donate money.  So if they walked, the charity stood to lose a lot of money.

In 2009, after the charity learned of Sandusky's abuse finding, 16 directors left its board.  

Key Losses:  All of the attorneys (6) who were on the Board in 2008, including Centre County Judge, Bradley Lunsford, called it quits after they learned Sandusky was under investigation.    A couple other notable departures were PSU BOT member Ira Lubert, who vacated his position on the Board of the Southeast Region, Drew Garban, the son of PSU BOT member Steve Garban, and Drue Anne Schreyer, daughter of former PSU BOT chairman, William Schreyer.

Gains: TSM tried to compensate in 2009 by recruiting new directors, including Senator Jake Corman, recent PSU BOT member Cliff Benson, businessman Louis Sheetz, and former PSU and NFL football player turned ESPN broadcaster, Matt Millen.   Sheetz noted that Sandusky resigned at the very first board meeting he attended, so it's rather obvious that he didn't know what he was getting into.  

But things would just go downhill from 2009 forward.

Child Protective Services and Sandusky

Sandusky missed  the 2009 TSM golf tournament.
Pictured R. McCombie, B. Gelzheiser, and Heim

In 2001, if TSM went forward and did what they were required by law to do -- report Sandusky to child protective services - then the charity would have had to put a safety plan in place to keep Sandusky away from children.  

Sandusky's absence at children's events would have raised questions -- just as his absence from the 2009 TSM (golf) Classic did.  

As the records show, as Sandusky circled the drain and eventually went down, so did the charity's revenues. To wit:


2007 (year ending 8/31/2008):   $3,219,219   
. 
Abuse finding January 2009.  Sandusky misses 2009 golf tournament.  16 Board members left.

2008 (Year ending 8/31/2009): $2,272,084

Sandusky resignation (internally communicated) due to abuse finding, September 2009.

2009 (Year ending 8/31/2010): $1,227,178

Sandusky's public "retirement." September 2010.

2010 (Year ending 8/31/2011): $1,012,015

Public announcement of Sandusky arrest, November 2011.

2011 (Year ending 8/31/2012): $330,588

TSM announces intent to close its doors.

2012 (Year ending 8/31/2013): $87,121

The Money Tells The Story

The original internal announcement of Sandusky's abuse finding, followed by his resignation - neither of which was reported to the public - resulted in over a $1 million dollar per year decline in direct donations.  

Those results indicate the Director's influence regarding direct donations and fundraising, which is a much more plausible explanation of Heim's advice against sharing the 2001 incident with the full board.

However, the decision by TSM not to report Sandusky to child protective services was likely a "no brainer."  A child abuse investigation was a risk to the charity's reputation and financial well-being.  

Instead, the choice in 2001 put children at risk and many were harmed as a result.

And that's the biggest elephant in the room.

Next: Bruce Heim's Op-Ed Provides Another Teachable Moment

Toyota Drives Big Hole in Heim's Response To Controversy

Bruce Heim's statements about The Second Mile's role in the Sandusky had holes so big that you could drive a -- TOYOTA -- through them!

By
Ray Blehar

Yesterday, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported Bruce Heim's response to the controversy over his participation in Saturday's coin toss at the Penn State - Army game.  

It comes as no surprise that Heim skirted his charity's culpability in the matter by hanging his hat on the fact the charity has yet to be charged in the Sandusky matter.   However, that by no means is proof the charity did nothing wrong.  

The evidence tells quite a different story than Mr. Heim:

HEIM: “By not going out, I would be admitting that the Second Mile did something wrong and the Second Mile didn’t do anything wrong.   The shame of this whole thing is thousands of kids are embarrassed because they were involved with the Second Mile.”

HEIM: “I was investigated by five different investigative agencies because of my association with the Second Mile. I didn’t do anything wrong. I was investigated for two years, spoke to the grand jury for over two hours. … The Second Mile didn’t do anything wrong. We didn’t think Jerry was a pedophile.”

EVIDENCE:  The May 5th, 2015 Sandusky PCRA filing shows that TSM had purchased a Toyota for a former participant for reasons allegedly unknown to the individual.  The individual eventually disclosed he had been one of Sandusky's victims.  

Federal officials referred to evidence like this as TSM's "Cars for Kids Program."

There are a number of criminal counts that could apply to this transaction, including fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, and tax evasion.  All federal matters.  



EVIDENCE: In 2009, after being informed of Sandusky's abuse investigation, the charity failed to put a protection plan in place to prevent him from accessing children.  The charity admitted that they stayed silent about his investigation and did not inform the public. Yesterday's blog post mentioned his contacts with children in 2009 and 2010 and two abuse incidents.  This evidence would support charges of Endangering the Welfare of a Child.

EVIDENCE: In late 2008, Clinton County CYS contacted The Second Mile (TSM) to inform them that Sandusky was under investigation for child abuse.  Katherine Genovese, TSM's Vice President for Development, responded that the charity "had to tell him to back off certain kids before."  



HEIM: “Jerry in my presence, in the presence of coaches, in the presence of the football team on several occasions had gone in and showered with kids,” Mr. Heim said. “I said (sic) every day at the YMCA men shower with kids.”

EVIDENCE:  Only one coach,  Richard Anderson  (a defense witness), admitted that he saw Sandusky showering with a child.  The prosecution did not present any Penn State coaches as witnesses of Sandusky showering with children.  (Source: Sandusky Trial)


EVIDENCE:  There is no evidence to support that Sandusky showered with kids in the presence of the football team.  Had that occurred, there is no doubt it would have been reported in the Freeh Report. (Source: Freeh Report)


HEIM:  “Nobody in the Second Mile had any inkling that he had done anything wrong.  If you don’t believe it, then why hasn’t there been one charge brought against the Second Mile? They have been investigated just as deeply and as vigorously as Penn State was.”


EVIDENCE:  Despite that fact that numerous individuals told investigators about Sandusky's association with TSM and that the first four boys interviewed in 2008 and 2009 all met Sandusky through the charity, the Pennsylvania State Police and Office of Attorney General investigators failed to secure a search warrant or subpoena the charity for information until January 28, 2011. (Source: Moulton Report)



EVIDENCE:  Investigators did not Subpoena participant lists from The Second Mile until March 24, 2011. (Source: Moulton Report)


Special Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Moulton stated there "were inexplicable delays in bringing a serial child molester to justice."   The failure to promptly investigate TSM was among them.


AG Kathleen Kane, in an interview with the Patriot News, stated her office was not investigating TSM.  As noted above, the possible crimes involved in the case are federal matters for which there are no statutes of limitations.

"Nifonged" Part 2: The Real Conspiracy of Silence

According to the Moulton Report, "the Penn State state emails" were turned over by July 7, 2011, proving a key obstruction of justice allegation was false and that Fina suppressed this evidence to charge Curley and Schultz with failure to report.   

By

Ray Blehar

In Part 1 of the series, the evidence indicated that Frank Fina's expectation that Curley and Schultz would "flip" was among the reasons behind his use of unreliable evidence.  Fina's reliance in pressing charges on flimsy evidence was much worse than that of Durham DA Mike Nifong, who was eventually disbarred over his misconduct in the Duke lacrosse case. In Part 2, the Moulton Report and a lot of other evidence reveal the misconduct on the part of Fina and then-Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin during the Sandusky investigation -- in the lead up to the eventual Conspiracy of Silence case.

On November 1, 2012, the Conspiracy of Silence  (CoS) presentment levied allegations of obstruction justice against Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley.  While a long list of allegations were included in the presentment, many of which were not crimes, the key allegation of obstruction of justice was the lack of compliance with Subpoena 1179.

GJ Subpoena 1179 (Sandusky case), issued on December 29, 2010 requested:  

"Any and all records pertaining to Jerry Sandusky and incidents reported to have occurred on or about March 2002, and any other information concerning Jerry Sandusky and inappropriate contact with underage males both on and off University property. Response shall include any and all correspondence directed to or regarding Jerry Sandusky."

That allegation was blown away by the Moulton Report's timeline, specifically:

"July 7, 2011. Tpr. Rossman receives a thumb drive containing Penn State emails."

Trooper Scott Rossman and OAG Agent Anthony Sassano were the two investigators assigned to the case in July 2011.  Obviously, Rossman's receipt of the Penn State emails proves the charge of a "total lack of compliance" was false. 

Additionally, the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson appears to confirm that Penn State had Schultz's notes by at least January 31, 2012 -- a little under a year before the obstruction charges were filed.

The analysis performed by Eileen Morgan made a very strong case that Penn State provided the OAG with the Schultz file in early January 2011 and that Fina utilized it in the grand jury examinations of Curley and Schultz.

However, the falsity of the obstruction charges doesn't stop there.  Not by a long-shot.

Smoke and Mirrors

PSU Policy AD49, effective July 19, 2010, clearly states that the General Counsel (Baldwin) was responsible for answering subpoenas: 

"LEGAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING SUBPOENAS:

Baldwin "stonewalled" the PSU Three

All legal documents including subpoenas are to be referred to or routed through The Office of General Counsel. The Office has the prerogative to send them to other parties after receipt. The Office of General Counsel shall establish all procedures for handling and addressing legal documents."

The entire obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy ruse is based on the assumption that Baldwin followed through on her responsibilities.  

Baldwin's grand jury testimony (pages 16-21) was clear that she met with each man one-on-one to discuss the subpoena.  

The evidence tells a different story.

Baldwin not only stonewalled the PSU Three about the subpoena, but of all of her knowledge of the evidence relevant to the Sandusky case.  

The Baldwin Stonewall

1998 Incident:  According to the Freeh Report (page 83), Baldwin obtained a copy of the 1998 police report on January 4, 2011.  Based on the consistent lack of recall of the 1998 incident by Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, it is quite obvious she didn't share the report to help prepare them for their appearance. Similarly, Spanier recalled almost nothing about the 1998 incident when he appeared at the grand jury in April 2011. 

2002 Incident:  Subpoena 1179 clearly identified 2002 as the date of the McQueary incident, but when under questioning at their pre-grand jury interviews, neither Curley nor Schultz got the date correct. Curley guessed 2000, while Schultz believed the incident was in 2003.  At Spanier's April 2011 grand jury appearance, he correctly stated 2002, although he said he wasn't sure of the date, but recalled it was about three years after Sandusky retired.

Subpoena 1179:  Baldwin did not advise Penn State officials of their responsibility to search for materials relevant to the subpoena.

Curley: According to Curley's omnibus pre-trial motion, he twice met with Baldwin, once at the Outback Bowl in Tampa, Florida (prior to the issuance of the subpoena) and once in State College, Pennsylvania to discuss his appearance at the grand jury.  Curley's motion makes no mention that Baldwin advised him to search for materials responsive to the subpoena.  

Paterno:  Scott Paterno, son of legendary coach, Joe Paterno, stated that Baldwin resisted providing him with his father's subpoena to testify and didn't provide it until April 2011.  He also stated that Baldwin never asked his father to search for any documents.  The Paterno family later volunteered numerous documents regarding Sandusky to assist in the Freeh investigation.  

Schultz: According to Schultz's omnibus pretrial motion, in December 2010, Baldwin informed him that he was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury in January 2011.  Schultz agreed to let Baldwin accept service of the subpoena on his behalf. Schultz's affidavit made no mention of Baldwin informing him to search for Sandusky related materials. 

Spanier:  According to Graham Spanier's New Yorker interview, he was not told to search for documents by Baldwin.  

"In that period from January, February, March, she [Baldwin] only gave me a report that these folks are going to the grand jury. She told me somewhere along the way that they were interviewing staff in the football program, and she would be there for all the interviews. But she never told me what was asked about in the interviews, never told me what came up with Curley and Gary Schultz in their testimony."


Motions To Quash: Baldwin never filed a motion to quash the Subpoena 1179 nor did she make any other formal appeal to the OAG for relief.  As such, the OAG was likely expecting many documents to be produced. 

According to the presentment, PSU had only turned over a handful of documents prior to the testimony of Curley, Schultz, and Paterno.

In consideration of the evidence above, Baldwin was either a completely incompetent attorney or she was intentionally undercutting PSU officials.  The circumstances of her hiring appears to point to the latter.

But what do Baldwin's follies have to do with Frank Fina? 

Unwitting Targets

During the January 2011 grand jury, Sandusky case prosecutors Eshbach and Fina didn't ask Curley, Schultz, and Paterno if they were informed about Subpoena 1179 or if they conducted searches to find relevant information. 

Fina: No questions about Subpoena 1179  

Given the allegation that Penn State had turned over just a handful of documents just TWO DAYS before the testimony of PSU officials,  it strains credulity that Fina and Eshbach didn't ask anyone a question about that subpoena or any questions at all about searching for documents related to Sandusky.  The only person asked about documents was Schultz, likely because Baldwin had already passed his notes to them.

Based on the evidence, it is almost certain that the Commonwealth knew Baldwin had not informed Curley, Schultz, and Paterno about their responsibilities to gather information in response to Subpoena 1179. 

This is not a case about a bunch of incompetent lawyers, but more likely a case of Fina, Eshbach, and Baldwin collaborating to extract sworn testimony from Penn State officials who had no idea they were targets of the Sandusky investigation.  

More Lies About Emails

Page 23 of the presentment alleges that Penn State did not use its established procedures or personnel to conduct the searches for emails.  The allegations (below) are false, as # 3 and #4 were disproved by the testimony of Penn State employee, John Corro, who works for Security Operations and Services (SOS).

On July 29, 2013, Corro testified (on page 89 and 90) that in April 2011, he recovered the emails based on the searches for Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, then provided them to Baldwin (page 91).  

Corro further elaborated (pages 91 and 92) that he provided three USB keys to Baldwin, one which contained the entire set of emails and two that were of specific searches. 

When asked if he saw Subpoena 1179, like the others, Corro stated had not. He had only seen a few lines of it as part of another document,  but understood that he was searching for information related to the Sandusky investigation.

According to the agreement made at the Spanier GJ colloquy on April 13, 2011, Penn State was ordered to provide the entire history of emails from PSU officials dating back the University's implementation of email (i.e., prior to 1997) for Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno.   

Due to the system cut-over in 2004, the search for emails responsive to Subpoena 1179 (citing 2002)  required Penn State to access the archived files where Gary Schultz's 1998 and 2001 email files were located.  Corro didn't testify to any issues with accessing the archived files.

Penn State was to provide the full set - everything found -  to the grand jury judge and then a "culled set" specifically related to Sandusky to the OAG. 

Baldwin agreed to provide everything by April 15, 2011.  

No evidence to date identifies the exact date on which Baldwin provided the USB keys to the grand jury judge and/or the OAG, however, the testimony of Corro, and statements by Fina and Eshbach reveal that all of the 1998 and 2001 the emails were in the OAG's possession by April 2011. 

As for Louis Freeh's alleged discovery of the 1998 and 2001 emails...the evidence reveals that it didn't happen.

Summary of Evidence

The bottom line is that Fina, et al, knew that Penn State had indeed used the SOS to gather materials responsive to Subpoena 1179 and that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were not guilty of obstructing the investigation by failing to turn over information.  To wit:

1. Schultz was retired from Penn State when Subpoena 1179 was served and had no access to the Sandusky file in his old office or to his 1998 and 2001 (archived) emails. According to an affidavit filed by Schultz, he informed Baldwin of the possible existence of the Sandusky file.  Any failure to provide those materials was because of Baldwin, not Schultz. 

2. Spanier did not possess materials responsive to the subpoena. 

3. There has been no evidence provided to date, aside from a reference in Erickson's notebook, that Curley possessed any evidence responsive to the subpoena.

The only other conspiracy to obstruct justice charge is wholly dependent upon the Commonwealth's legally impossible task of proving that Mike McQueary informed Curley and Schultz that a crime was being committed.  

In other words, the Commonwealth has nothing.

And let's face it, if there was any material/inculpatory evidence to be found, Louie Freeh would have put in his report.

Fina vs. Nifong

One of the reasons Durham County DA Mike Nifong was disbarred was for failure to disclose evidence that negated the guilt of the defendants.  Nifong failed to provide the complete results of the DNA tests that concluded two of the three defendants were not involved in the alleged rape of Crystal Mangum and made numerous misrepresentations about the nature of the evidence before the court.  The withholding of evidence was in violation of former Rule 3.8(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.  The misrepresentations were in violation of Rule 8.4 (c). 

Fina's case is a bit different than Nifong's, however the same rules of conduct apply.

The fact that the Penn State emails were in the Commonwealth's possession by at least July 2011 (if not April 2011)  is proof that the Commonwealth knowingly lied about Penn State's failure to comply with Subpoena 1179. 

Given that the emails (and the Schultz file) included the date of the 2001 incident witnessed by McQueary, the evidence also proves that Fina, et al, purposely misstated the year of the McQueary incident in order to charge Curley and Schultz with failure to report in November 2011. 

The Sandusky prosecution team of Fina and Eshbach filed numerous documents with the court misrepresenting the date of the Victim 2 incident as March 1, 2002.  It was not until May 7, 2012 that Fina and McGettigan's Motion to Amend the Bill of Particulars to provided the correct date of February 9, 2001.

The evidence shows that Fina, et al, made numerous misrepresentations to the court during the Sandusky proceedings, in initially charging Curley and Schultz, and during Baldwin's grand jury testimony in October 2012.

Conclusion

The evidence regarding Penn State's provision of the email evidence is exactly the type of information that Frank Fina and his cohorts likely feared would be exposed when their "flip" strategy failed.  

While Moulton's investigation didn't highlight it, there is little doubt that his investigative team uncovered the email ruse.  If not for the toxic politics of the Sandusky case -- and the pre-emptive strike by Fina -- AG Kane might have already went public about Fina's deception.

No doubt, there was a "conspiracy of silence" related to the Sandusky case, but not by the people accused of it.


Next: Freeh "Fail"