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

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

by Barry Bozeman

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

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


FEAR & LOATHING in HAPPY VALLEY - The BALDWIN DUPLICITY and The CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

CYNTHIA BALDWIN - Who is this Woman? 

And how can we explain or even understand her actions ?  

By all biographical and outward signs, Cynthia Baldwin is a major success story:

PSU BA in English 1966, MA in Amer. Lit 1974. Worked as a teacher, English professor and Asst. Dean of Students at PSU's Greater Allegheny Campus. JD from Duquesne 1983, Prosecuting Attorney Bureau of Consumer Protection. First black woman elected to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas 1989 - 2006. Appointed interim Supreme Court Justice by Governor Ed Rendell.Jan 2008 Duane Morris, LLP -. appellate litigation non-profit issues. VP / General Counsel at PSU Jan 2010 to announced resignation in Jan 2012   President PSU Alumni Assn 1989-91.and Chair of the Board of Trustees 2004-07.

What happened to Cynthia Baldwin seems a complete mystery? 

Continuing yesterday's  PROSECUTION or PERSECUTION - CONSPIRACY of SILENCE we can compare Graham Spanier, Tim Culey and Gary Schultz's actions to Cynthia Baldwin - the person these administrators believed was representing them and Penn State at the Grand Jury.

PSU President Graham Spanier was a good friend and benefactor to Cynthia, putting her name forward for several awards and honors over his 16 years at the helm of PSU. He approved her request to resign from the board and take over as in-house General Counsel & VP when the Board decided to go with in-house counsel in January 2010. Turns out that may be the biggest mistake Graham ever made. 

In 2012, Graham Spanier was under review for a very high security clearance from the Department of Defense and the Intelligence community, since he was involved with:

National Security Higher Education Advisory Board,

The National Counterintelligence Working Group, and

The Board of Advisors for the President at the Naval Postgraduate School & War College

Baldwin told the federal Office of Personnel Management in early 2012 that Spanier was very smart, “a man of integrity,” and “very forthcoming and open” with the board of trustees. 
About six months later she testified before a grand jury that Spanier told a series of lies and misleading statements before and after Sandusky was arrested in late 2011. 

How does that make any sense, Cynthia? How can a person make 180 degree opposite claims in 6 months. In early 2012 Spanier is a "forthcoming open man of integrity" - half a year later he's a "misleading liar". 

When you read the POST HEARING MEMORANDUM from Graham Spanier's Attorneys you will be even more astounded at Cynthia Baldwin's behavior and statements along with the court's acceptance of this behavior. Typically I would not suggest a full reading of a long legal document, but this one is simply astounding. Some excerpts:

PROSECUTION or PERSECUTION - The CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

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

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

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

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

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

PROSECUTORS - POWER CONFLICT and CORRUPTION with UNLIMITED RESOURCES

FEAR & LOATHING in HAPPY VALLEY
by Barry Bozeman (an homage to Dr. Gonzo, who would have done justice to this story)

Prosecutors are “shepherds of justice.” When a government lawyer, with enormous resources at his or her disposal, abuses power and ignores ethical standards, he or she undermines public trust and inflicts damage beyond calculation to our system of justice. This consequence, alone, compels the responsible and ethical exercise of this power.

CORBETT, KELLY, BEEMER, FINA, BALDWIN, and FREEH

These 5 PROSECUTORS have the wealth and power of the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at their disposal and, in the case of prosecutor Freeh, 8.2 million Penn State dollars that he used to trash The Penn State Culture. 

CORBETT and BALDWIN both hold or held positions on the Penn State Board of Trustees. 
CORBETT became GOVERNOR.
BALDWIN was the GENERAL COUNSEL for Penn State University.

CORBETT was ATTORNEY GENERAL when the Grand Jury was convened. 
KELLY was CORBETT'S hand picked successor. She did not seek election.
BEEMER was KELLY'S chief of staff. 
FINA was lead prosecutor on the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier cases until he resigned. 
BEEMER took over for FINA.

The SLIME also RISES -- Segments of the following contain language and descriptions Dr. Gonzo might have used were he still with us. Hunter S Thompson (HST) was a master of descriptive hyperbole for effect. Picture: by Ralph Steadman, HST's artist of record.

PROSECUTORS PLAN NOVEMBER 5 PRESS CONFERENCE TO PERSECUTE PENN STATE

Well ... to hell with writing with reserved respect for the subjects of this essay. These malicious mendicants feeding from the public trough don't deserve polite measured consideration. These are bottom-feeding mutants on steroids, unfit for reason or respect. The Commonwealth has had more than its fair share of slimy creatures dredged up from permanently smoldering underground coal pits and fracking contaminated aquifers, particularly the prosecutors and judges who seem to flourish while committing some of the most heinous crimes in memory, crimes against children -- KIDS FOR CASH. 

CORBETT is a real piece of work. You can contemplate his Lebanon Valley BA and St Mary's Law Degree, as the absolute minimum requirement. His stint as counsel for Waste Management is so odorous that he has wiped it from his bio. As a prosecutor, Corbett is ethically unfit by the standards set forth by the American Bar Association: 

“ The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not to persecute, but to prosecute, and that he should endeavor to protect the innocent as well as to prosecute the guilty. He should always be interested in seeing that the truth and the right shall prevail….”

The muddy, blood-spattered path from prosecutor to higher political office is well worn and often traveled. PA politicians have plumbed the furthest depths of this sewer more often than most. It's an obvious route, where vastly superior resources in staff and wealth are pitted against individuals forced to pay hideous amounts of money to well-connected mouthpieces or suffer the consequences of representation by a court-appointed well meaning dullard of less than equal wit with none of the resources. Prosecutors have all the advantage and, too often, pursue publicity or a high conviction rate at the expense of truth or justice. The current reigning champion example of this being The West Memphis Three

Tom Corbett vs Graham Spanier - THE PENN STATE CULTURE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PENN STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRAITORS

By Barry Bozeman

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

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

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

trai·tor   noun

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

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

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

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

usage:  "convicted traitors will be executed"

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

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

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

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

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

That's unbelievable and unforgivable. 

The McQueary Evolution

by Barry Bozeman

 In the wake of ESPN's Outside the Lines and ESPN the magazines article "THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S LAST STAND", I am revisiting my thoughts about Mike McQueary and his pivotal role in what became the Penn State Sex Scandal. 

The first comment I ever made on the Penn State/ Second Mile/ Sandusky revelations came the day of Linda Kelly’s Press Conference on Nov. 4 2011. As an active participant on the Tennessee Scout sports forums I injected a comment in a long thread of people literally calling for McQueary’s head on a pike. The anger and hatred of McQueary was visceral. “How could a big strong football coach in good shape fail to step in and kick the crap out of an old man who was raping a 10 year old boy”?

Well I could not wrap my head around it either so I felt there must be something else going on and I knew the true nature of a Grand Jury Presentment. Knowing that presentment was not an unassailable statement of fact I tried to caution my fellow Volunteer fans to reserve judgment until all the facts were in. That seemed to be a big mistake. People were angry. Angry at Penn State, at Joe Paterno, at Tim Curley and Gary Schultz and very angry with Mike McQueary.

If Linda Kelly’s goal was to destroy Penn State and Joe Paterno in the court of public opinion, she succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. If this was the reaction on sports forums for the Tennessee Volunteers it had to be the reaction across the country on similar forums. I’m not sure why I thought there was far more to this story than seemed evident in the PA Attorney Generals presentation but I became intent on finding out. That led to the creation of this weblog and a long history of exploring the case. 

I actually felt sorry for Mike McQueary. I thought he must have been an abused child – possibly abused by Jerry Sandusky. I tried to imagine how shocked I might have been if I had seen what the Presentment claims he saw. But over time I came to a much different conclusion concerning McQueary and his role in this entire affair. There is no question that Mike McQueary was used by the Office of the Attorney General to make The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal into the Penn State Scandal. The only question I want to consider now is whether he was a willing participant, a coerced participant, or and unwitting dupe.

Over time much thought and effort has been focused on attempting to understand what McQueary actually saw. Linda Kelly’s presentment stated this “most credible” witness “SAW a boy being subjected to anal rape” by Jerry Sandusky. McQueary has made it clear that this overstates his observation. This website was the first to obtain and publish pictures of the locker room where this took place. 

What we do know about that night is that McQueary phoned home and then left the Lasch building to meet with his father and family friend Dr. Dranov that night. The following morning he had a 10 minute conversation with Joe Paterno. And several days later he met with Tim Curley and Gary Schultz to tell them what he had observed.

Even if we can accept that McQueary was so freaked out by what he saw or thought he saw at the Lasch building that he could not react in a manner to protect the child that Kelly says he observed being raped, can we accept that condition made it impossible for him to convey the nature of the heinous crime to his own father and long time family friend Dr. Dranov?

McQeary says the child's height in comparison to Sandusky placed his head at the pectoral muscles of Sandusky's chest.

Here is the point where McQueary's description of the end of his observation becomes important. McQueary says he faced the boy and Sandusky standing a couple of feet apart both observing him. He does not say the child showed any discomfort or surprise much less any fear, pain, embarrassment, or horror over whatever had happened. How is it possible that a small child of that size would not be in pain or greatly distressed if those slapping sounds were a big man driving himself into the child? And perhaps more importantly, how could a grown man desert a small child who was fearful or in pain to the person who was responsible for that situation? 

Preliminary Hearing: Lisa Powers Confirmed Surma's Role in Public Relations Disaster

Powers' testimony confirms that Surma directed the "shut down" that led to the PSU PR disaster

By
Ray Blehar

Penn State's response to the Sandusky scandal was rated one of the top public relations disasters for not only 2011 but also 2012.   Now, based on Lisa Powers' preliminary hearing testimony, we know that John Surma directed the disaster that ensued after the release of the grand jury presentment.


A PR blog in Denver summed it up this way...

PENN STATE

Penn State represents one of the greatest PR disasters of all time, certainly of the last decade. In fact, it has been such a debacle that the university managed to make the list both last year and this year. Last year, the university went from one of the nation’s most revered institutions to one of the most reviled in a matter of weeks due to its lack of a response to a horrible child sex abuse scandal that saw two administrators indicted, a former assistant coach arrested and football coaching legend Joe Paterno fired. This year, additional details emerged about an institutional culture that valued football success over protecting innocent children that were disturbing enough that the NCAA nearly gave the school’s football program the so-called “Death Penalty.” The result was another year of brutal headlines that will have almost everyone older than 10 associating Penn State with child rape for the rest of their lives.

Here's the summary from Business Insider, who rated it as 2012's top disaster:
1. Penn State covers up the Sandusky scandal.

Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was charged and later convicted of repeated counts of child molestation while at Penn State.

Although the scandal was unveiled in 2011, the university felt the full fallout in 2012 when the Freeh report stated that Joe Paterno and the administration covered up Sandusky's abuses, Major companies pulled sponsorships of the program.

Part of the PR disaster was due to Penn State's initial difficulty addressing the problem. Pulitzer-winning stories in The Patriot-News of Harrisburg initially uncovered the scandal in March 2011. But Penn State remained tightlipped. PR firm Ketchum was hired in November of 2011, and the school hired Edelman and La Torre for crisis management in April 2012. The school pledged to spend $208,000 a month for 12 months on PR support, but the damage was done.

March 2011 Grand Jury Article

According to Powers' testimony (page 20), she had reached out to then-PSU General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin for advice on how to respond the 31 March 2011 Patriot News article regarding PSU officials who had testified at the Sandusky grand jury.

Baldwin told Powers it was the third or fourth grand jury (actually, it was the second due to the first grand jury's term expiring) that had looked into the Sandusky allegations and there was nothing there.  It was a fishing expedition.  Baldwin said that PSU had nothing to say and Powers followed the advice of counsel.

This appeared to be a major tactical error and poor PR decision on PSU's part, however, Caroline Roberto, the attorney representing former Athletic Director, Timothy Curley, revealed that Judge Fuedale issued a non-disclosure order to PSU (page 58) in February 2011.

PSU was forbidden from being transparent about its role in the Sandusky probe.

However, the March article, in reality, didn't have much of an impact with the public or the PSU BOT.  

Many people, myself included, believed that the investigation may have resulted from a Second Mile participant who had an ax to grind with Sandusky.   The situation was similarly characterized by Spanier and Baldwin when they briefed the PSU BOT in May of 2011.

November 2011:  Right Move

Looking back at how the Penn State PR disaster unfolded, Graham Spanier did exactly the right thing when he issued the statement making it clear that there were allegations  (not crimes) against Sandusky and defending the actions of  Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.  Spanier's November 5th statement follows (my emphasis added):

"The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.

With regard to the other presentments, I wish to say that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.

Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately."

According to Powers' testimony at the preliminary hearing, on October 28th, Spanier had gathered together a small group of PSU leaders, including Garban, Baldwin, and PR chief Bill Mahon to discuss the pending charges against Curley and Schultz.   Spanier expressed that he was sure that the men had handled the situation appropriately and was giving them his full support.  When Powers asked Spanier why he would choose to support Curley and Schultz, Spanier responded essentially by asking Powers to put herself in the position of the accused men and if she would expect the support of her supervisor.

In short, Spanier was doing what a good leader would do - defend the actions of Curley and Schultz, and more importantly, Penn State University.   A poor leader would have thrown the men and PSU under the bus (to protect himself) -- and that was the option exercised by the PSU BOT about one week later.

November 2011 - Wrong Moves

After Spanier issued his statement, Powers got word the next day that the PSU BOT was angry that Spanier had "changed" the statement.  Spanier responded that he did not make substantive changes to the statement and Powers testified that the only changes made were to add the line about protecting children and Spanier's unconditional support of Curley and Schultz.

The BOT was never specific about what changes to the statement were the "crimes of the century," however, I suspect that it really didn't matter what Spanier wrote -- the BOT was going to find fault with it and use it as a reason to relieve him of his duties as President.

This is where it gets interesting.

While the BOT was allegedly upset with Spanier's statement, they did not issue a new statement to replace it.  Instead, all anyone heard from November 5th to November 9th was silence -- and a few leaked rumors of the intended removal of Joe Paterno as head coach.

On Monday, November 7th, Linda Kelly held the press conference to announce the Sandusky charges.  Many who viewed the press conference found it unusual that Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan took the the microphone and made the fateful statement that Paterno failed in his moral obligation to protect children.  However, this should not have come as any surprise, as Noonan was also prominently mentioned and quoted in the OAG's press release about the Sandusky charges.  In other words, Noonan was involved in the crafting of the message, likely because the presentment and press conference had to provide cover for his disastrous three year investigation (where police and investigators failed to surface a victim).

Surma Takes Over
John Surma and Steve Garban met for breakfast on Tuesday, November 8th and, in a pre-planned move, Garban stepped aside and Surma took over.

According to the New York Times, Corbett (who earlier vowed to fire Spanier) had been working the phones with Surma and other BOT members once the indictment became public.   Garban told Spanier that the BOT had lost confidence in his ability to lead.

PSU's only chance to right the sinking ship in this disaster would have been Paterno's Tuesday morning press conference, however, Surma (who was now in control of PSU) cancelled it.

According to Powers, all communications emanating from PSU after the original statement from Spanier had to be approved by Surma.  And Surma, whose family had a major ax to grind with Paterno,  was more than happy to let the media dictate the false narrative of that Sandusky's crimes were covered up by Paterno and others to protect the football program.

PSU remained silent until the night of November 9th, 2011 - when Surma himself declared Spanier and Paterno should be removed in the "best interests, long term interests" of Penn State University.

Approximately one hour earlier, Surma had moved that Paterno be removed in his conference call with trustees.  The motion was met by silence - except for the voice of Tom Corbett, who stated, "remember that little old boy in the shower."

When asked to explain the reasoning behind the decisions to remove Paterno and Spanier, Surma was woefully short on answers.

Ketchum, who was hired in November 2011, obviously did nothing to help PSU and the hiring of LaTorre and Edelman to assist PSU's public relations efforts can be summed up in two words:

NO COMMENT.

The Limits of Memory and Suggestive Memory

The limits of memory and suggestive memory are factors that should not be overlooked in the Sandusky case. 

by
Ray Blehar

After the Ziegler release of the interview of "Victim 2," I got a phone call regarding the statement he made that "incriminated" Curley and Schultz because "V2" said Sandusky told him he'd be getting a call from Tim Curley because McQuery saw them engaged in a sex act. 

In an earlier blog post, I quoted Jim Clemente, who said:  "after ten years or twelve years or thirteen years, you can't remember specific words that you used in a conversation.  And it's irresponsible for somebody to quote somebody ten years or twelve years after the event and say those are the specific words they used in a specific conversation.  That is absolutely not done it's - it's not proper in a criminal investigation at all."

I reminded the caller of Clemente's statement and added that any "quotes" from 2001 can't be considered as an accurate account of what was said based on two things: the ability of memory and suggestive memory. 

Long Term Memory

First, what is retrieved from long term memory is typically part of a schema that your mind has established for retrieving information. For example, I can recall things that I learned from many years ago because my mind has built a system for retrieving it that relies on relationships between the information. New information is added to the schema.  I don't memorize it, rather, I understand how one piece of information relates to the next and my brain has established a schema.  The depth of processing builds the network for recalling it as needed.  

Certainly, there are things retrieved from memory as a matter of rote or repetition.  I like to use the Bill Clinton quote, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,' as an example.  This was a quote played over and over again in the news cycle, thus I remember it quite well.  It is doubtful that anything said in 2001 was repeated over and over again by any of the parties involved during that timeframe, thus was not committed to memory by rote.

In listening to Ziegler's interview of Sandusky. it appeared as if he could recall the events of that night in the shower with amazing clarity. He may have been able to do this because he was not recalling that particular incident, but the repeated pattern of horseplay he had with all the victims. Victim 4 reported very similar activities. Ziegler's "V2" and Sandusky worked out and showered on several occasions. It is likely the same activities occurred each time, thus March 1, 2002 or the correct date of Feb 9, 2001 are essentially the same occurrence as retrieved from the schema of memory.  

Ziegler's "Victim 2" recalled what happened that night as well, but it was essentially the schema he had built regarding the multiple times that he had horsed around in the shower with Sandusky.  Obviously, not exactly the same events transpired each time, but the mind had formed a lasting impression of the shower activity that was recalled from long term memory.

However, I highly doubt that he had built a schema for remembering the exact words of a phone call from 12 years ago.   The interjection of new information very likely made its way into the recollection of what was said in that phone call.  That was likely a result of suggestive memory.

Suggestive Memory
On November 9, 2011 (the date of the interview), the person claiming to be Victim 2, just like the rest of us were subject to an unrelenting news cycle that repeated the WRONG DATE of the incident (which he repeated) and that McQueary witnessed a sex act/rape in the shower. This information was interjected into his memory of events, so that when he recalled the phone call from Sandusky he added the information that he had been hearing over the days leading up to his interview.(i.e., McQueary was the reporter - unknown to Sandusky until November 2011- and that McQueary believed he witnessed a sex act) 


This article from LiveScience explains it quite well.

Some of this failure of reliability happens at the scene of the crime, said Maria Zaragoza, a psychologist at Kent State University in Ohio. Things happen quickly; the emotional charge of witnessing a crime may keep people from cuing into important details. If there's a weapon, Zaragoza said, people tend to become hyper-focused on it. They pay more attention to a gun than to the face of the person holding it.

Often, "the information getting into the memory system is very limited," Zaragoza told LiveScience.

The next source of memory uncertainty happens during the investigation. Suggestive questioning can distort memories, Zaragoza said. Each time you relive the crime, either out loud to an investigator or in your own head, that distorted memory is strengthened.

In one famous case, 22-year-old college student Jennifer Thompson was raped at knife point by an intruder in her bedroom. Through her terror, Thompson tried to categorize the details of her assailant's face. She went to the police and worked with an artist to draw a composite sketch. In photo, in a lineup and in court, she identified her rapist as Ronald Cotton.

"I was completely confident," Thompson (now Jennifer Thompson-Cannino) wrote in a 2000 editorial in the New York Times. "I was sure."

But 11 years later, new DNA techniques disproved Cotton's guilt. He'd spent more than a decade in prison for a crime committed by another man, Bobby Poole.

It's likely that working on the police sketch altered Thompson's memory of her rapist's face, Zaragoza said. Later, when she'd picked him out of a lineup, her confidence only grew. Cotton's face started haunting her flashbacks. When she met her real rapist in court, she didn't even recognize him.

What happened to Cotton and Thompson, chronicled in the book "Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption" (St. Martin's Press, 2009), wasn't a weakness of Thompson's, Zaragoza said. Anyone's memory can become twisted with time.

Mike McQueary

So, as Mike McQueary glanced into the shower, was his focus on the victim, who was behind Sandusky or was it on Sandusky (the threat)?

And did the questioning by investigators have an effect on McQueary's memory?  Ziegler's "Victim 2" was a 14 year old boy in 2001, yet McQueary identified the boy as being 10 or 11.  Did the investigators suggest that Sandusky had a habit of showering with young boys that influenced McQueary to state the boy was of a younger age than he actually observed?

These are legitimate questions that aren't posed to make the case that Sandusky is innocent.  As a matter of law, every time Sandusky showered with a minor, he was committing two felonies and one misdemeanor.  However, the science suggests that McQueary's memory of the 2001 incident may have distorted the incident over time or that his recollection of the event was influenced by information provided to him by police during the investigation.   This does not mean McQueary is lying because he may indeed believe that his recollection of events is truly what he saw.  

But I would be willing to be any amount of money that Mike McQueary's recollection of offensive formations and offensive football plays is far superior to his recollection of the events of  February 2001 because his brain has established the schema for performing the recall of that information.

Conclusion

The limits of memory regarding an isolated incident preclude one from remembering exact words or exact details of the event.  It is likely that no one involved in the 2001 incident remembers exactly what was said.  Tim Curley, as athletic director, had many other things on this plate that demanded his attention, particularly the expansion of Beaver Stadium in 2001,  that would taken precedence.  Similarly, Gary Schultz, Joe Paterno, and Graham Spanier, would not have focused on this event, given the multitude of issues they faced on a daily basis.

Kenneth Frazier: Anti-Child and Anti-PSU

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

By

Ray Blehar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSU Finances

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

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

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

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

Just thought I'd throw that in.     

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

BOT Not Protecting Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World leader?  Hardly.

Freeh's Critics Are the Real Protection Advocates

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

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

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

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

Biased Use of Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I digress. 

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

Here's the email:

From:  Joe Smith, Merck Corporate Security

Sent:   Wenesday, May 6, 2007

To:       John Adams, Merck VP Finance

Subject:  Re: Kenneth Frazier

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother concerned something more

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

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

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

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

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

They knew it - and they blew it.

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

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

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

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

We're digging until the truth is uncovered.