"Freeh source materials" confirm the Curley File

Freeh Report source materials already in the public domain, combined with other evidence, confirm that Tim Curley had a file on Sandusky -- and its contents found their way into the so-called Schultz "secret file"

By

Ray Blehar 

Even though the alumni-elected members of the Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) have succeeded in gaining access to the Freeh source materials, the court sided with Old Main to keep the information from being publicly disclosed.

Regardless of that ruling, and likely unknown to the public, some of the Freeh source materials  are already in the public domain - and they prove that evidence was manipulated and/or tampered with in order to railroad PSU officials (i.e., Curley, Schultz, and Spanier).

However, when the source materials are combined with other existing evidence, the totality of the evidence confirms that former PSU Athletic Director (AD) Tim Curley had information related to the Sandusky matter -- and that information was illegally placed into the so-called "secret file" of former PSU VP for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz.

The Key Evidence?

What appears to be a seemingly insignificant document -- a February 11, 2001 computer printout that lists the names of the Board of Directors of The Second Mile (TSM) and its date/time stamp -- turns out to be a very key piece of evidence.

According to the Freeh Report (at 71), on "February 12, 2001, at about 11:10 AM, Schultz researched the internet about the Board members of The Second Mile, the charitable organization Sandusky founded."

The passage is referenced to End Note #303: Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12), however this printout -- that was printed at the exact same time "Schultz researched the internet" -- was not included in the Freeh Report.  Had it been included, most reasonable people (not Sally Jenkins) would have concluded that Freeh was making quite an evidentiary leap to tie an unlabeled computer printout to a specific individual.  In short, Freeh excluded the print out as a matter of maintaining his (alleged) credibility.

The document wasn't introduced as evidence in any legal proceeding to date -- for a very good reason.

The timeline of evidence does not support Gary Schultz searching for the names of members of the TSM Board on February 12, 2001.

Curley, Not Schultz, Concerned About TSM

Freeh Report Exhibit 5C, the February 12, 2001 "Confidential" hand-written note of Gary Schultz outlined an early plan for addressing the 2001 incident.  Schultz made no mention of  TSM in that plan.

According to the grand jury testimony of Curley (at 181 and 188), he originated the plan to inform TSM about the 2001 incident  and proposed it during the February 25, 2001 meeting with former PSU President Graham Spanier and Schultz.

Freeh Report Exhibit 5G, Schultz's February 28, 2001  email  also confirms Curley proposed informing TSM: "we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed)."

Schultz also memorialized Curley's plan, which included discussions with TSM, on February 25th and 26th, in handwriting (Exhibit 5G) and by email (Exhibit 5F), respectively.

Finally, Freeh Report Exhibit 2J, the notes of Graham Spanier, also confirm that Curley was very concerned about his impending interaction with TSM.

In summary, this evidence reveals that Curley came up with the plan to talk to TSM and had concerns about the charity's reaction.  Given the evidence, it was Curley - not Schultz -- who printed out the names of the TSM board members on February 12th.

While the printout turns out to be a very significant document in the grand scheme of things, it's not the only "source" document that provides evidence of manipulation and/or tampering.

March 7, 2001 Email Manipulation/Bias

A March 7, 2001 email allegedly obtained from the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz, memorialized a discussion between  Curley and Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble, regarding Curley's follow up on the plan to address the incident.

Freeh Report's Exhibit 5I of the email is on the left, while the source document (introduced as Commonwealth's Exhibit 18 at the July 2013 preliminary hearing) is on the right.

The evidence shows that the Freeh Report exhibit was printed from an email file and was not the full email discussion between Coble and Curley.  The Freeh Report excluded any mention of Curley's affirmative response that he had followed through on the plan by March 7th.  Note that March 7th is the circled date at top of the full email.

This is significant because the Freeh Report stated, without equivocation, that Curley met with TSM on March 19, 2001.  However, the Freeh Report's March 19, 2001 date is based on a hearsay statement from an unnamed legal representative for TSM.

The Freeh Report's conclusion of the March 19th meeting between Curley and TSM was also refuted by Spanier's notes (Freeh Exhibit 2J).  Spanier wrote that he met with Curley shortly after their late February meeting that the former AD had followed through on the plan to speak with TSM.

The Freeh Report made several inferences that Spanier had been less than honest with the Freeh investigators, thus excluding the critical evidence of the March 7th date was two fold:  to support the Freeh Report conclusion of a March 19th meeting and to undermine the credibility of Spanier.

As shown in email obtained by PSU alumnus, Ryan Bagwell, Freeh made it a point to alert personnel conducting Spanier's background investigation for a security clearance about evidence found during the (criminal) investigation.  Spanier would eventually lose his clearance as a result of the charges against him.

The evidence manipulation to persecute PSU officials certainly was more widespread than those documents.  Over 80 documents cited as sources in the Freeh Report were excluded, and most importantly, some of the most critical missing evidence is tied to the Curley/Schultz files.

Curley's Notes Turned Over In February 2011

The grand jury questioning by Frank Fina revealed he was not yet aware that Tim Curley possessed any information about Sandusky.  Fina didn't ask a single question whether Tim had taken notes during any of the meetings about the 2001 incident.  In fact, Fina didn't even ask Curley (or anyone else) if they had searched for documents responsive to Subpoena 1179.  Clearly, Fina knew that Baldwin didn't tell these men to search for documents.

According to the Freeh Report (at 84), on February 15, 2011, Baldwin met with members of the football coaching staff to discuss their knowledge of Sandusky.  The next day, OAG investigators were present and conducted more interviews.  It is likely that the search for documents from the football coaches and AD officials occurred then or very shortly thereafter.

OAG special agent, Anthony Sassano later testified that the legal team of Duane Morris delivered boxes of information (he presumed was from Schultz's office)  that contained Sandusky's retirement paperwork.  Duane Morris was the former employer of Cynthia Baldwin -- and she brought in members of that firm in to assist her.  According to a notation on one of the retirement papers (Freeh Report Exhibit 3H), it was received (by someone, but certainly not Louis Freeh) on February 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm.

While the public has been led to believe that the retirement paperwork came from the Schultz file, it is clear that Curley had a copy of it.  As noted on the letter, Sandusky was instructed to return his signed copy to Curley (see below).  This indeed confirms that Curley and/or the AD's office had information related to Sandusky in its possession.

But that's not the only significant issue regarding the Curley file.


More Tampering?
According to the testimony of Joan Coble, she had no specific knowledge of anything in the bottom drawer of Schultz's filing cabinet.  She testified she never looked in the drawer.  As such, Coble's testimony provided no legitimate information regarding the contents of the Schultz file.

Based on the evidence cited previously, by the time Kimberly Belcher removed the file from Schultz's bottom drawer in November 2011, it had been touched by so many hands that the authenticity/integrity of the contents would be compromised.

It also appears that one of the "hands" involved may have tampered with the retirement letter.

Under magnification, it appears that Schultz's signature has been overlaid on a previous signature block. Note that the words "BY UNIVERSITY OFFICER: and "for Finance" do not have shadowing or aliasing around them.

















For the purpose of comparison, here is top of page two at similar magnification, showing the clear, bolder, non-shadowed type as the authentic typeface.

It is highly probable that those who tampered with the evidence did so thinking that Freeh's impeccable reputation would prevent anyone from questioning the authenticity of the evidence and that they could get away with railroading the PSU 3.

Under the patently ridiculous narrative of the Freeh Report, it was the lure of the Penn State football facilities that provided the "very currency" that Sandusky used to attract his victims. With Schultz's signature affixed to the document, each of the PSU 3 (and Paterno) would be tried in the court of public opinon for enabling Sandusky's sexual abuse.

Freeh publicly smeared PSU officials for allowing Sandusky to be on campus after there were no charges or findings against him in 1998.  Moreover, Freeh ignored the evidence that no crimes occurred on campus after 2001, instead stating that abuse continued on the PSU campus through 2009.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly, evidence timelines or chain of custody of evidence can be counted on to undo the false narratives of the cases prosecuted by the PA Corruption Network.

The Chain of Custody of the Schultz Files

According to OAG officials, the notes of Schultz were not provided to them until April 2012 -- by Schultz and his former administrative assistant, Kimberly Belcher.

Louis Freeh claimed, during his highly publicized press conference, that "we found them in conjunction with the Attorney General."  The Freeh Report notes the date of discovery as May 1, 2012.

However, both of those claims are refuted by the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson.  On 31 January 2012, which was three months before the Schultz notes were either turned over to the OAG or "found" by Freeh, Erickson wrote that he was to get copies of the notes of Curley and Schultz.

PSU alumnae Eileen Morgan's excellent analysis of the evidence surrounding the grand jury questioning of Curley, Schultz, and the late former PSU football Coach, Joe Paterno almost certainly proves that Frank Fina received the Schultz file from PSU (i.e., Baldwin) prior to the January 12, 2011 proceeding.

While Erickson's notebook confirms that he knew that Freeh's alleged discovery of the Schultz file and the OAG's pretense that the files were not turned over until April 2012 were both shams, it also confirmed that he was aware of Fina's strategy to get Curley and Schultz to flip.

Based on the analysis of the evidence, it is highly probable that Fina, et al, decided to throw the whole kitchen sink of evidence at Schultz, rather than Curley, in an effort to produce the flip.

The Truth

PSU, under Erickson and new puppet President Eric Barron have paid out untold millions to keep various litigants, including some of its own trustees,  from accessing the Freeh source materials.

In doing so, Old Main and the Old Guard utilized specious arguments or protecting employee confidentiality and that the Freeh Report didn't impact University decisions as a means to keep the alumni trustees from finding out the truth.

The reality of the matter is that Erickson, Baldwin, and others know that it is only a matter of time before the Freeh source materials expose the truth about the Sandusky matter.

And the only thing Erickson, Baldwin, Harmon, Fina and numerous others fear more than the truth is what the truth will eventually do to them.

Media Chose to Ignore Failures At The Second Mile

Violations of the CPSL and other failures to protect children by The Second Mile were ignored by the media -- in order to sell newspapers.

By
Ray Blehar

Had Jerry Sandusky been a Boy Scout leader, there likely would not have been a "sex scandal" at Penn State University (PSU).

Imagine the following scenario...


Upon receiving a report that local Scoutmaster Jerry Sandusky had been observed showering with a boy, late at night in a seemingly abandoned PSU locker room, University officials reported the incident to the Board of Sandusky's Boy Scout troop.  

After being informed of the incident, a discussion ensued among a small group of the troop's  Board members.  One very prominent member stood up and defended Sandusky's actions,  stating he didn't think it was a big deal that a scoutmaster had showered with one of the scouts.  He added that men and children shower every day at the YMCA and the issue seemed to be a "non-starter."  He told the other Board members not to take it to the full Board for a decision.  The report was stopped dead in its tracks.

Ten years later, Sandusky was charged with the abuse of 8 boy scouts.  The investigative report revealed that PSU officials had alerted the Boy Scout troop about Sandusky and that its Board took no action.  As a result, more scouts were subjected to abuse.

What would the media have done with this information?

Would it have blamed PSU for not fulfilling its "moral obligation" to protect the boy scouts? 

Or would it have put the blame where it belonged -- on the scout troop's board?

The answer is obvious, given that there were cover ups of prior sex abuse cases in the Boy Scouts.  It would have become a story of national interest

But The Second Mile (TSM) wasn't the Boy Scouts. 

 As one PSU graduate in journalism recently tweeted....

Selling newspapers and getting clicks trumps the truth every time.

Note the next tweet by Amy Z. Quinn's employer....

There are numerous ways that so-called journalists could reference Jerry Sandusky, such as "convicted child molester" or "serial child molester," however, as the latter tweet confirmed, the media didn't believe that Sandusky's name was nearly as important (to garnering readers) as his association with PSU.

Sadly, that has been the case from the alleged leak of the Sandusky charges and subsequent press release by the Office of Attorney General (OAG).  The press ran with the OAG's story apparently without the least bit of fact checking.

Had they done any research at all, they would have learned that the unknown charity called The Second Mile (TSM) was located in a county with a history of covering up serial child sex abuse cases.  A former TSM board member, Judge Bradley Lunsford, was involved in one of the decisions that kept the lid on a prior abuse case. 

So much for investigative journalism.

The media pack pushed on, ignored TSM, made Sandusky a secondary player in the scandal, put Penn State at the forefront, and totally whiffed on the lessons learned and improvements for protecting children that should have emanated from the scandal.

Wensilver Responds To Heim Coin Toss Flap

The recent “coin toss” controversy this month regarding the Co-Founder and long-time Board Member of Sandusky’s Second Mile children’s charitable non-profit, Mr. Bruce Heim, opened the door slightly for the media and the public to re-focus their questions on the role of the Second Mile leadership in their failures to protect children.  

Penn State President Barron rescinded the honorary Army/PSU game opening coin toss invitation to Mr. Heim after a flood of complaints from well-informed alumni.  Alumni that have been questioning the leadership decisions at Second Mile since the scandal broke in late 2011.  More specifically, alumni have questioned the actions of charity CEO and licensed child psychologist, Dr. Jack Raykovitz, on addressing Sandusky's conduct, which was reported to him in 2001, and PSU's subsequent banning of Second Mile clients from the campus. 

We've heard nothing on the Second Mile until this coin toss controversy and Mr. Heim's compulsion to reply to complaints via an Op-Ed on October 7th in a local State College publication.  
 In it, Mr. Heim voices his displeasure on the revoking of this coin toss honorarium, complains of being dishonored, and laments that with benefit of hindsight, he wished he had done more. Yet he also admits to both his and charity Executive Director, Dr. Jack Raykovitz’s roles in concealing PSU’s 2001 complaint from the Second Mile Board at large, the Second Mile staffers and charity volunteers. 

Mr. Heim admits to the agreed upon concealment of facts from others in charity leadership positions. Facts, that had they been escalated by a concerned parent about their charity figurehead's conduct with minors, would very likely have led to bad publicity for the Second Mile.  That is an issue any full Board of a children's charity needs to know about.

Mr. Heim’s statement that the Second Mile didn’t have “some culpability” in the scandal and that contrary opinions are based on “conjecture” is a demonstration of his own ignorance of the charity’s legal requirements and the facts in evidence. 

One has to ask that as an involved, decades-long board member and Co-Founder with Sandusky of a Pennsylvania children’s charitable non-profit, why Mr. Heim was not educated on the standards of safe conduct for adults working with children, and more specifically, reporting requirements in Pennsylvania?  

Mr. Heim states this “It never occurred as a possibility until the release of the 2011 Grand Jury presentment that shocked a nation, destroyed a great charity, devastated a town, impugned a university, and by implication its wide alumni base, and maligned a personal friend, partner, and icon who did everything he was supposed to do with the information he had: Joe Paterno.” 

However, Mr. Heim confesses in his Op-Ed that the break in the reporting chain was among the leadership at Second Mile.  Therefore there was never a “cover up” among the administrators at Penn State, least of all with Mr. Paterno. The Second Mile was legally mandated to follow up on institutional complaints on its employee’s conduct with minors, investigate it, possibly report it to outside agencies and implement a written safety plan as per state mandate.

That never happened.

Bruce Heim's Letter Provides Learning Opportunities

The breakdowns in PA's child protection system were lost in the sensational reporting about Penn State's role in the Sandusky scandal.  Bruce Heim's letter provides another opportunity to highlight them.

By
Ray Blehar

Bruce Heim's October 7th guest op-ed (Bruce Heim: Shedding Light on The Second Mile's Decision Making) provides us with a number of opportunities to learn about how the system broke down and enabled Sandusky to perpetrate crimes for over a decade.

The mistakes by the county agencies and  The Second Mile have garnered little attention, but had the correct steps been taken, children may have been spared from abuse. 

Heim:  "At the time [2001], The Second Mile had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, which was not reported to us."

By law, Centre County Office of Children and Youth Services (CYS) was required to notify The Second Mile within 24 hours of receiving the 1998 abuse allegations against Sandusky.  The purpose of the notification was to ensure that the charity put a plan of supervision in place to protect program participants while Sandusky was under investigation.  

That didn't happen.

According to the 1998 University Park police report, Sandusky continued to contact the two children who were subjects of the investigation.  Both children were participants in the charity's activities. In addition, according to court documents, Sandusky was accessing Victim 4 - another participant - during this period.

The law also states that in instances where the county agency has passed the responsibility for investigating to the regional office or the Department, as it did in 1998, it still maintains responsibility for the plan of supervision and other notifications.

About ten years later, similar failures occurred.

Charity did not put
approved plan in place
after the 2009 finding

Heim:  "Upon receipt of the 2008 report, it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities."

In 2008, Clinton County CYS was the investigating agency and it also failed its oversight duties.  Clinton County CYS Director, Gerald Rosamilia, erred by assuming that because Sandusky was no longer accessing the subject (Aaron Fisher) that no plan of supervision was needed.  

As noted above, The Second Mile was required to develop a plan of supervision to ensure Sandusky did not have access to children.  However, the law also required the plan be approved by the county agency and kept on file until the closure of the investigation.

By the charity's own admission, it kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  It did not inform program participants or the public.  It is doubtful that such a plan would have been approved by Clinton County CYS or DPW.

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009.   Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010. 

Similar failures, ten years apart by two different county agencies, reveals that child protection employees were not well versed in their responsibilities to keep children safe during investigations.  

The evidence also shows that The Second Mile did not comply with the law by failing to get its plan of supervision approved and that its plan was insufficient for protecting children.

Mr. Heim's statement that The Second Mile didn't have "some culpability" in the scandal and that contrary opinions are based "on conjecture," is based on ignorance.

And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

CDT: Full letter to the editor regarding Heim

My recent letter to the editor was cut-off at the half way point.  I contacted the CDT about the error and hopefully it will be corrected soon.  

Until then, here is the full letter, plus the relevant laws.

Recent letter writers to the CDT believe it was wrong for Penn State to rescind its invitation to Bruce Heim to participate in the coin-toss prior to the Penn State - Army football game.  Both writers believe that it was a simple case of guilt by association (to The Second Mile) that drove Penn State's decision. 

Both writers also appear to share the opinion of Bruce Heim, who in response to the coin-toss flap, stated The Second Mile had no culpability in the Sandusky scandal and that opinions otherwise were based on “conjecture.”

The evidence and the law proves those opinions are wrong. 

Bruce Heim was among the charity's decision makers about handling the Sandusky matter. Heim stated: “Upon receipt of the 2008 report [when Sandusky informed the board he was under investigation], it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities.”

What Heim didn’t say was that the charity kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  The charity also did not inform program participants or the public. 

The law required The Second Mile to have their plan of supervision (i.e., ban from “kid related activities”) approved by the county agency. The law also required the plan kept on file by the county until the closure of the investigation.

Those things didn’t happen. 

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009. Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010. 

In short, the Second Mile's plan of supervision was ineffective.

Statements that The Second Mile - or that anyone besides Sandusky - didn't have "some culpability" are simply not supported by the law or the evidence.

RAYMOND BLEHAR

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

The legal requirement for The Second Mile to put an approved plan of supervision in place follows:

§ 6303.  Definitions.

"Child-care services."  Includes any of the following:

(1)  Child day-care centers.

(2)  Group day-care homes.

(3)  Family child-care homes.

(4)  Foster homes.

(5)  Adoptive parents.

(6)  Boarding homes for children.

(7)  Juvenile detention center services or programs for delinquent or dependent children.

(8)  Mental health services for children.

(9)  Services for children with intellectual disabilities.

(10)  Early intervention services for children.

(11)  Drug and alcohol services for children.

(12)  Day-care services or programs that are offered by a school.

(13)  Other child-care services that are provided by or subject to approval, licensure, registration or certification by the department or a county social services agency or that are provided pursuant to a contract with the department or a county social services agency.

§ 6368.  Investigation of reports.

(i)  Investigation concerning a school or child-care service employee.--

(1)  Upon notification that an investigation involves suspected child abuse by a school or child-care service employee, including, but not limited to, a service provider, independent contractor or administrator, the school or child-care service shall immediately implement a plan of supervision or alternative arrangement for the individual under investigation to ensure the safety of the child and other children who are in the care of the school or child-care service.

(2)  The plan of supervision or alternative arrangement shall be approved by the county agency and kept on file with the agency until the investigation is completed.

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

Kudravetz: Case Against PSU Even Weaker After Heim's Letter

Published October 8, 2015 

PennLive.com

In light of recent comments by former Second Mile Vice Chairman Bruce Heim, I'd like to submit the following:

Heim made comments recently after being disinvited from the Penn State football game coin toss. He indicated that he did not think Jerry Sandusky had done anything wrong; Sandusky showering with kids was not considered unusual; and he did not think at the time that Sandusky was a pedophile. 

These comments raise important questions with respect to the entire Sandusky matter.

Penn State reported the 2001 shower incident to The Second Mile, Sandusky's employer. The 2001 statute was followed, even exceeded, by Penn State. Thus, there was no cover-up or "conspiracy of silence" by Penn State.

Conversely, The Second Mile violated the law when it chose not to report the 2001 shower incident to child protective services. The Second Mile leadership also consciously withheld Penn State's report from its board of directors.

Why, then, were the Penn State administrators charged with failure to report and a cover-up? And why, as mandated reporters, were the leaders of The Second Mile not charged at all?

The Office of Attorney General should drop the charges against the Penn State administrators immediately. It has no case, and it never did.

JANET PARKHILL KUDRAVETZ, Arlington, Virginia

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.

The Bruce Heim Bru-ha-ha

Heim admitted he stopped The Second Mile from taking action against Sandusky in 2001.  The decision to select him to represent Army at the coin-toss on Saturday is another bad decision by PSU.

By
Ray Blehar

In what can only be called a jaw-dropping move, Penn State has selected former Director of The Second Mile (TSM), Bruce Heim, to represent Army in the coin-toss on Military Appreciation Day.  Heim was nominated for the position by alumni-elected Trustee Ryan McCombie, who formerly sat on the Board of AGSM with Heim until 2013.

McCombie, in a statement today, stood by his decision to nominate Heim, citing his military record.  Unfortunately, McCombie is ignoring Heim's role in failing to protect children from Jerry Sandusky.

The 2001 "Failure To Report" Decision

In 2001, former Penn State Athletic Director, Timothy Curley, reported what Mike McQueary had reported to him about Sandusky showering with a child to the Executive Director of TSM, Dr. Jack Raykovitz.  Curley also informed Raykovitz that Penn State was banning Sandusky from using the facilities with TSM participants because his behavior was inappropriate.

According to an August 12, 2012, Harrisburg Patriot News report, Heim admitted that he stopped Raykovitz from reporting Sandusky's behavior to the full TSM Board.

“It goes right to the heart of what Tim Curley said to the grand jury, and that is that Tim Curley told him that he didn’t want Jerry Sandusky on campus anymore in the showers, because we were in a day and age where that was inappropriate,” Heim said.

Raykovitz then asked Heim — a local real estate investor and someone who isn’t shy about his loyalty to Penn State, the Paterno family and many of the key players in this scandal — if he should relay this to the full board.

“And I said no,” Heim said.

Heim went on to state that he convinced the TSM executive board to conceal the incident from the full board, therefore stifling any action to stop Sandusky.

“The executive staff knew in 2001, staff and executive board.  I stood up in that meeting and said that happened and I told them I advised Jack not to go to the board with it.”

Heim (right) mentored
children in one-on-one
 fitness programs

Mandated Reporters

While Dr. Raykovitz had no legal responsibility to report the incident to the full board, both he and Heim had a legal responsibility to report the incident to child protective services. 

§ 6311.  Persons required to report suspected child abuse.

(a)  Mandated reporters.--The following adults shall make a report of suspected child abuse, subject to subsection (b), if the person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse:

(1)  A person licensed or certified to practice in any health-related field under the jurisdiction of the Department of State.

(7)  An individual paid or unpaid, who, on the basis of the individual's role as an integral part of a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, is a person responsible for the child's welfare or has direct contact with children.

Dr. Raykovitz was a licensed psychologist thus covered under (1).  Heim was an unpaid volunteer who provided mentoring to children in TSM's Friend Fitness Program (7). In that role, he had direct contact with children and was responsible for their welfare. Heim also volunteered to mentor a similar program at the Upper Main Line YMCA.

As a psychologist who worked in a child development practice, Raykovitz had absolutely no excuse for not reporting the 2001 incident as suspected child abuse.  Moreover, he should have not been reliant upon the advice of Heim, whose expertise is real estate, to make a decision about informing the TSM Board.  

As the Executive Director of a youth service organization, Raykovitz had responsibility for the protection of the children in his care.  By not taking action against Sandusky in 2001, an untold number of children were subjected to child sexual abuse.

The 2009 Decision

In the wake of the 2011 grand jury presentment, numerous stories surfaced regarding how the charity's board was kept in the dark about Sandusky.   However, the Harrisburg Patriot News reported, on August 12, 2012, that the charity's board made a decision to stay silent about Sandusky's 2009 abuse finding.

Essentially, the decision came down to money.  The charity needed Sandusky as their top fundraiser and face of the charity for as long as possible.  

“I know the people who run the golf outing said, ‘He’s a big reason why people come — to see him.’ That makes sense, in my opinion. That’s not involved in programming,” said Louie Sheetz, executive vice president of marketing for his family’s chain of Pennsylvania gas stations and convenience stores.

Sheetz was wrong about Sandusky's involvement in programming.  

While the charity made a number of public statements to the effect that they prohibited Sandusky from all programs involving children, the public record shows he took part in children's programs in March 2009 and in the Summer of 2010.  

Tragically, the record also shows that at least two children, D.F. and Victim 9 were abused in 2009 after the charity's Board (and Heim) learned of Sandusky's abuse finding.

Bad Decision, Courtesy of Louis Freeh

The University has publicly condemned and made pariahs of individuals who were charged with failing to report Sandusky.   Nothing about their cases is proven.  They haven't gotten their day in court.

On Saturday, the University will celebrate a man who admitted he stopped a report of Sandusky's conduct from going forward in 2001 and who was part of a charity that actively concealed Sandusky's 2009 abuse finding from the public at large. Both decisions resulted in children being abused.

Ironically, this unfathomable decision, like many others that have caused embarrassment to the University, can be traced back to the Freeh Report.

Had Louis Freeh conducted a complete and thorough investigation, as he was hired and paid $8.5 million to perform, this decision would have never been made.

A real investigation and report would have informed the public about the role of Heim and The Second Mile, among others, in enabling Sandusky's abuse.