Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

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

By
Ray Blehar

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

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

Kane was right.  The delays were "inexcusable."

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

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

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


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

Failure to Find Victim 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

That didn't happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failure to Find Victim 10

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

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

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

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

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

Inexplicable delays?  Certainly not.  

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Silent 18's Settlement Decision Is Driven By Secrecy

The recent 18-6 vote to settle with Sandusky victims is further confirmation that the controlling majority of the PSU Board of Trustees will spend large sums of money to keep the truth hidden.

By
Ray Blehar

The vote in favor of the settlement resolution was 18-6.  

The 18 who voted for the resolution didn't provide any reason for their support.  The six who opposed all did and it was trustee Anthony Lubrano's statement that struck at the most likely reason PSU has decided to settle the pending lawsuits.

“Unfortunately, Penn State continues to pay almost three years later, and today we look to pay again.  But I say no more.  No more resolutions to approve settlements while denying trustees access to the materials used to prepare the Freeh Report; no more feeding at the trough of Penn State."

According to two independent sources, Penn State (in 2013) provided settlements to all claimants who would accept below the $2 million per instance or $3 million aggregate limits, as provided by the University's liability insurance.   26 of 32 claimants were awarded settlements. Of the six claimants that were denied, three had requested more compensation than the the limit.  The University stated that the three other claims that were denied lacked merit.  However, it is more likely those claims were denied because the abuse fell in the period during which Sandusky was under investigation by the Attorney General (e.g., D.F. lawsuit).


Victims 6 and 9 were among the three claimants whose attorneys were not satisfied with accepting the "chump change" the University was offering.  Their attorneys pressed on with civil litigation and, as a result, were granted access to the documents used as source material by Freeh, as well as other information which could prove harmful the trustees who control the power base.  

Victim 9's lawsuit resulted in access to all 3.5 million documents used as source materials in the Freeh Report.  While PSU appealed the ruling to the Superior Court, the schedule called for the turnover of all documents by May 4, 2015, which was eventually extended to 29 May.  The pressure was on "silent majority" to make something happen to keep that information under wraps.

What Records Are Being Withheld and Why?

Some might recall that in the early stages of the investigation, Freeh vowed to investigate activities dating back to the mid-seventies.  However, according to documents obtained from Old Main, Freeh requested every "record ever created back to '69."  1969 was the year Sandusky was hired as a full-time assistant football coach.  Information from 1998 forward was used in the report, thus simple math reveals 29 years worth of information was excluded.  

Note that Freeh's charter was to investigate and report on the causes for all of the allegations that were published in the Sandusky grand jury presentment.  He failed to do so by excluding the incidents involving Victims 7 and 10, which predated 1998.  The reason for the omissions was obvious -- there was no evidence linking those crimes to Paterno or other PSU officials. 

In addition, the criminal proceedings in the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier case established that Freeh excluded a number of emails and documents from his report that would have shed light on the failures of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) during the 1998 investigation.  Among omitted documents were a handwritten note by Schultz that reported DPW had received the report from Dr. Alycia Chambers (denied by DPW's Jerry Lauro) and an email revealing CYS remained involved in the case until late May.  The Freeh Report stated CYS recused itself from the case in early May, citing a conflict of interest with The Second Mile.  

A full document dump could also result in exposure of the full, unadulterated, "critical" emails that were used by Freeh and the Attorney General as evidence against the PSU Three. Questions have been raised regarding the provenance on those documents because at least six different dates were provided for when they were turned over to the state police and/or Attorney Generals office.  The testimony of the Attorney General's forensics expert regarding anomalies in the emails was less than convincing.  If it is shown the "critical" emails were subjected to tampering, the narrative of a PSU cover-up scandal would be over (and replaced by the big question of who was behind the tampering).   

FYI: the top candidates would be Cynthia Baldwin and Louis Freeh.  Former officials from the PA Attorney General's office would be co-conspirators.

Other Information

While Victim 6's lawsuit did not yield access to all the Freeh documents, however it has resulted in obtaining a lot of other important evidence.   The court ordered Penn State to provide, among other things, the names of people who talked to Freeh investigators about any Sandusky shower incidents with boys from 1990 to 1998, complaints of sexual misconduct against any employee at the University Park campus from 1990 to 1998, and documents between Penn State and the NCAA from the time Sandusky was indicted to the issuing of the sanctions.

The documents between Penn State and the NCAA are likely among the information Penn State wants most to hide.  While the Corman v. NCAA lawsuit provided many emails between the two entities, Senator Corman stopped short of releasing all the documents obtained through discovery.  Those documents would likely provide more evidence confirming that Ken Frazier and Ron Tomalis had instrumental roles in authoring the Freeh Report and additional  evidence confirming that the University and the NCAA had an agreement from the outset to use the Sandusky scandal to penalize PSU football and Paterno.  No doubt, those revelations would send a shock wave across the country and lead to the end of the professional careers of Freeh, Emmert, and others who were involved in the deception.

As shown above, the information that might be revealed through discovery would be ruinous to Rod Erickson, Cynthia Baldwin, members of the PSU BOT inner circle, Mark Emmert, Louis Freeh, and Frank Fina.   All of those people took part in scapegoating PSU officials and/or Paterno for Sandusky's crimes.

Conclusion

In the cases of Victim 6 and Victim 9, the information being sought would most likely blow up the credibility of the Freeh Report.  Ironically, both of their lawsuits borrow heavily from the Freeh Report to make their claims that PSU was culpable for the crimes committed by Sandusky.  

Penn State could easily defend against the lawsuits by publicly rejecting the Freeh Report and then going into litigation with the evidence that undermines Freeh's findings.  Meanwhile, the plaintiffs would be in receipt of the evidence that disproves their cases -- and be left with nothing.  

When you get down to it, the Silent 18 voted to pay a large sum of money to settle cases the University would win.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/03/18/4091149_some-freeh-investigation-material.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Patriot News and PSU settlement atty Rozen trash victim D.F. to protect Corbett

While the Patriot News concludes that Victim D.F. wasn't found credible by PSU's settlement attorneys or Frank Fina, it is more likely the date of his abuse drove the decisions about his "credibility."

By
Ray Blehar

On Wednesday, I wrote about the new D.F. lawsuit and PSU's best chances for fighting it.  Today (September 4th, 2014), the Patriot News reported that D.F. was interviewed "years ago" by police and concluded he was not found credible by the prosecution and by PSU settlement attorney Michael Rozen.  This shameless trashing of the victim demonstrates that the P-N will stop at nothing to quash any information that shows the foot-dragging by Tom Corbett's AG office put children in danger.

In a familiar maneuver, P-N reporter Charles Thompson cherry picked the statements in the lawsuit to make it appear D.F.s abuse didn't occur during the Sandusky investigation.  To wit:

The civil case hinges on two specific incidents, both allegedly occurring when the boy was about 12 years old.

• A shopping outing in 2008 or 2009, during which the former coach allegedly pulled his car over to the side of a road and forced the plaintiff into oral sex.
• A 2008 Penn State home game against Coastal Carolina University. The game was a rout, and the teen said Sandusky left early, took him back to his home, and raped him.

 The lawsuit is very clear that D.F. is alleging abuse occurred during the Sandusky investigation:


11. Plaintiff participated in Several programs provided by Defendant-The Second Mile from the years 2004 through 2012. 

12. Defendant-Sandusky had recruited, groomed and coerced the Plaintiff throughout the years that Plaintiff attended Defendant-The Second Mile.



Thompson also cited former prosecutor Frank Fina's rebuttal of AG Kathleen Kane's statement that two victims were abused during the Sandusky investigation as likely evidence that new victim, D.F.,  is one of those victims and isn't credible.  

Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan stated (and Fina concurred) that they interviewed someone who they learned of in 2012 who claimed to be abused in 2009, but didn't find him credible.

The more likely reason this victim was not "credible" was because his abuse happened between 2008 and 2012 -- during the Sandusky investigation.  As I reported earlier, the prosecutors likely manipulated dates on the Bills in Particulars in order to get specific outcomes in this case.  One of those outcomes was to conceal that victims were abused while Sandusky was under investigation.

Once again, the "paper of record" in the Sandusky case is carrying water for former AG Tom Corbett and making an evidentiary leap based on the AG prosecutor's words -- instead of examining the "reality" of the Sandusky case's prosecution.  

Not only were dates and locations of crimes manipulated in the Sandusky case, but Frank Fina went to the extreme to prosecute two cases with unknown victims.  In the case of the janitor incident, he didn't have a victim or an eyewitness or any evidence of crime beyond the hearsay testimony of janitor Ronald Petrosky.  Petrosky's testimony was inconsistent on the date, location, and circumstances of the crime.  And Fina himself had to pull a fast one - changing the crime scene location during a sidebar - to rebut defense attorney Karl Rominger's argument that if Petrosky's testimony was he could only see legs, then too only could the eye-witness (James Calhoun).  


It is hard to imagine any incident could be less credible than the account of the janitor -- but that's what Fina and the PN want you to believe.

Patriot News, Part 4 of 9: Chapter 6, The Spickler Cover-Up

Once again, the Patriot News used its power of omission to ensure that all the blame for enabling Sandusky's abuse stayed focused on Penn State

By

Ray Blehar

On June 18, 2012, the mother of Victim 9 took the stand to testify about her son's abuse.  During the testimony, she was asked if she had ever reported Sandusky's behaviors to anyone.  She answered that she had reported it to two persons - a school official, Mrs. Short and her son's counselor, Mr. Spickler.

The mother had told Spickler that her son was uncomfortable with Sandusky because he was "touchy feely." Spickler told the mother not to report her concerns because of Sandusky's stature in the community.  See transcripts below.

 P-N reporter Charles Thompson's coverage of the mother's complaint managed to repeat the information about Sandusky being "touchy feely," but as usual, there was no mention that Sandusky's behavior had been reported to the boy's counselor (who is a mandated reporter under the child abuse reporting statute).

At first, when Victim 9 made complaints about Jerry being “touchy, feely,” his mother didn’t pick up the hints of a humiliated child.

Once again, the omission was quite breath taking considering that the only time the words “touchy feely” were used to describe Sandusky’s behavior was during that particular sequence of testimony.

This omission would quite remarkable  if it was not for the fact that it was the P-N’s practice of excusing everyone (CMHS, DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile) except Penn State officials for their failures to act on Sandusky's inappropriate conduct.

I have little doubt that if the name” Spanier” or “Curley” or “Schultz” had been substituted for “Spickler,” Thompson’s column would have spent a lot of "copy" writing about to whom the mother complained and their failure to act.

The bias in the P-N's reporting couldn't be more obvious.

Next:  Chapter 5:  The DPW Cover Up

PennLive Editorial Board Caught Lying About Victim 9's Abuse

On June 25, 2014, the PennLive Editorial Board wrote this falsehood about Victim 9's abuse:

"As of now, there is no publicly-available proof of Kane's claim that the perplexing delays in bringing charges against Sandusky allowed him to continue abusing boys past March 2009."

PennLive's  June 14, 2012 column (below) definitively reported that abuse occurred through Victim 9's sixteenth birthday in 2009.  According to the trial transcripts, his birthday was July 29, 1993.

"For nearly four years, until 2009, he said, he slept at Sandusky's house almost every weekend. The abuse occurred on most of those occasions, he said.

Sometimes he would scream and tell Sandusky to stop molesting him, he said, but "there was no fighting against it."

The man said he finally had enough when he was 16 in 2009 and called his mom to come get him at Sandusky's home. "I didn't tell her why," he said."

-- Matt Miller, PennLive, June 14, 2012

PennLive's obfuscation of the truth continued when the editorial board cited two articles as proof of "inconclusiveness."  Both articles fell well short on providing a full review of the facts.

"However, court records that might confirm or reject her claim about Victim 9 are inconclusive, according to reporting by PennLive's Charles Thompson and the Philadelphia Inquirer."

Neither reporter provided a quote from the transcript of the Sandusky trial, in which Victim 9's testimony under cross-examination was definitive that he was abused until the age of 16.  Thompson stated that the  "start and ending dates of that relationship were never precise, however, and by some interpretations of his testimony the abuse may have stretched into 2009."

What is imprecise is Thompson's statement.  You can read the relevant part of Victim 9's transcript below, which is definitive that the abuse stopped at age 16.

The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote: "Prosecutors in court documents said the abuse ended in 2008. On the stand, the victim was unsure about the year it ended. In a 2013 lawsuit, he claimed the abuse continued until 2009."

There is no uncertainty or equivocation by Victim 9 at all about when it ended.  The Inquirer is lying too.

The Inquirer's reference to the court document was specific to the (revised) May 18, 2012, Bill of Particulars -- which stated the date of the crimes ended in 2008.  However that doesn't tell the full story.  The previous Bill of Particulars from February matched the Victim's testimony, stating that 2009 (and age 16) was the end date of the abuse.  You can read those below.

It really doesn't matter what the Bill of Particulars said because it was a pre-trial document. The victim's testimony is what the jury heard.  Victim 9, who was 18 when he testified, was not trying to overcome a distant memory like many of the other victims.  His abuse had stopped just two years earlier. 

No amount of lying and obfuscation by news reporters after the fact changes the Victim's testimony.  As the Inquirer noted, his lawsuit also contends he was abused until 2009. 

The Soon to Be Told, Untold Story

In what has become a disgusting ritual in this case, the PennLive editorial board and its staff biased its reporting based on a skewed view of the evidence.  Once again, PennLive omitted evidence and published known falsehoods to keep the stink off Governor Corbett, the Pennsylvania government officials, and others who let Sandusky continue to be a public menace for decades.

Then PennLive editorial board closed it column with this jaw-dropping statement:

"Instead, we have proof of distressingly sloppy work by the state's chief law enforcement officer."

After reading a 339 page report detailing an inexcusably slow investigation that was filled with procedural errors, the editorial board criticized Kathleen Kane for sloppy work?

PennLive's lack of journalistic ethics is without limits and the gauge on their morality has been broken for years.

Early thoughts (and finds) on Moulton's Investigation

Moulton's investigation signals the beginning of the end of the charade known as the "Penn State sex scandal"

By
Ray Blehar

Special Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Moulton's investigation of the Sandusky investigation didn't deliver a fatal blow to Governor Tom Corbett.  Of course, once it was known that Moulton didn't have subpoena power and that the investigation was an internal review, everyone's expectations should have been tempered.

At least one criminal investigation is underway by the Feds at the present time and it will bring us closer to finding out the truth about the role of The Second Mile and, most likely, government entities involved.

As for the key findings -- they were almost exactly as I had predicted on the day before the release of the report.  Moulton found the pace of the investigation to be to slow, with "inexcusable" delays in getting warrants and in the failure to establish a multidisciplinary task force.  Not to blow my own horn, but I was first to coin this investigation as "inexcusable" last July (and PS4RS, Eileen Morgan, and I were mentioned in the footnote on page 4 of the report).

While Moulton's investigation was comprehensive, it lacked many of the details that were included in Report 3, such as the fact that many of the victims had "dockets" in the court system that investigators could have used to find them (sooner).  Also, it did not point out the failures by police to identify Victims 9 and 10, even though both individuals were named on camper lists and had asterisks next to their names.

The timeline was most beneficial in really understanding what happened in the investigation.  Again, it was very similar to the timeline in Report 3, which showed investigative activities ramping up in April.  Moulton's report revealed the investigation got busier in January, but the most activity occurred in May.  This fact supports the conclusion that electoral politics did not have as much of a role as perhaps other influences (more to come on that).  The Moulton report also concluded - in conflict with the Patriot News -- that additional resources were not significant in finding additional victims.

Finally, this report is far from the complete story.  It bears repeating that Moulton lacked subpoena power and could not compel anyone to testify.  The Pennsylvania State Police refused to make their officers available, thus the report relies on paper police reports (which may not be entirely accurate).

Abuse During Investigation

The bombshell of the day came when AG Kathleen Kane announced that two victims had been abused in the fall of 2009, while the investigation was still lagging.  That led to an outcry by the reporters, who strangely forgot that victims names should be kept confidential, and eventually by police and prosecutors, who challenged the veracity of Kane's statement.  Fina, McGettigan, and Noonan denied any knowledge of a victim being abused in 2009 in statements to the press.

The press then went on the attack today, decrying the error in Kane's statement.  Kane had mispoke, stating the victimization may have been prevented with an earlier arrest, however, she was incorrect on at least one of the victims (Victim 9 who had suffered continuous abuse from 2005 to 2009).   In any event, Victim 9 could have been spared from some abuse had Sandusky been apprehended sooner.

 As for the second victim, Kane stands by her story.  The later victim came forward in 2012.

The Patriot News is not only NOT expressing any moral outrage, but continues to deny Victim 9's abuse into 2009, stating "there is no evidence that the worst case scenario occurred."  This blog reported on Victim 9's abuse during the Sandusky investigation and its cover-up by the Patriot News in a number of blogposts.

It will continue to do so at every opportunity.

Finds

After just a cursory review of the 336 page report, some interesting information pops out.

1.  In a June 3, 2011 email, Agent Anthony Sassano complained about then-PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin stonewalling and filing motions to thwart subpoena requests.  This evidence will come in handy should Curley, Schultz, and Spanier ever go to trial.

2. Trooper Scott Rossman received a thumb drive of Penn State emails on July 7, 2011.  This is significant for several reasons, but first among them is that it is more evidence that Louis Freeh lied about making "independent discovery" of the email evidence on 20 March 2012.  The second issue is that it shows an apparent time lag between the turnover of the emails by PSU (in April 2011) to the OAG and the OAG's release of them to the police.

3.  Victim 5 was first identified in January 2011, but not interviewed by police until June 7, 2011.  He was one of the original four possible victims identified by the mother of Victim 6 and her daughter.  The report gives no explanation for the delay in finding him, however, Report 3 revealed he had a "court docket" in the system that could have been used to find his address.

4.  A New York Times reporter knocked on the door of Victim 1's home and was asking pointed questions in November 2010.  Review of the Sandusky trial transcripts revealed that the reporter was a male who first contacted a neighbor of Fisher's.  The neighbor, Josh Fravel, directed the reporter to the new address. (CORRECTION: Eshbach's email about a CDT reporter was not correct.  The reporter was from the New York Times)

5. The police interviewed janitor James Calhoun, however, the police reported he suffered from dementia at the time of his interview.  They also interviewed several other janitors.  Ironically, only one janitor testified at the trial.  Also, it is notable that none of Calhoun's three children testified to support the story.  I am keeping this incident in the hoax category.

6.  Despite the fact that two victims were abused by Sandusky in 2009, The Second Mile Executive Director continues to stand by his assertion that Sandusky was removed from all programs involving children in 2008.  See rebuttal, page 339.

Ganim & Patriot News Continue Cover-Up for TSM, DPW - Turn Back Clock on Crimes, Sandusky's Access

Recent columns by CNN's Sara Ganim and PN's Charlie Thompson turned back the clock on the crimes committed against Victim 9.

By
Ray Blehar

As the lawsuit for Victim 9 splashed into the news last week, the Associated Press reported that Victim 9 had been abused past his sixteenth birthday into the Fall of 2009.  The Collegian reported that Victim 9 met Sandusky in 2005 and his abuse spanned four years.

Those media accounts match the trial testimony, which also stated that Victim 9 was sixteen when the abuse finally ended. Victim 9 was born on July 29, 1993, which places his abuse into late 2009.

However, Patriot News staffer Charles Thompson wrote on November 22nd,  that Victim 9's attorneys were suing for abuse that took place between 2005 and 2008, shaving the last year off the time frame of the crimes (my emphasis added).

The new plaintiff's attorneys, asserting that their client suffered among the worst of the injuries inflicted by Sandusky on any boy through a period from 2005 through 2008, disagree.

Former Patriot News staffer and Pulitzer Prize winner, Sara Ganim, now reporting for CNN, also truncated the years of Victim 9's abuse in her November 21st article, stating that his abuse ended "about the time that another victim's allegations started a police investigation."  (Hat tip, JimmyW)

Ganim was referring the the Aaron Fisher investigation that began in November 2008.  Victim 9's abuse continued at least 8 months past that date.   Ganim who won the Pulitzer Prize for local reporting on the Sandusky case, also made it a point of emphasis that she sat "through that trial every single day" when she appeared on Piers Morgan, opposite John Ziegler, in March 2013.

Obviously, Ganim was not being completely truthful with her statement because she fled the courtroom right before she was to be called as a witness in the case.  As a result, the attorneys stipulated that Ganim had passed the contact information for an investigator to the mother of one of the victims in the event the mother wished to contact authorities.

But more to the point, if Ganim sat through the trial every single day and listened to the testimony of the victims, then she had to know that Victim 9 stated his abuse occurred up until he was sixteen and thus into 2009.

So, the million dollar question is why do the Patriot News, Ganim, and Thompson, continue to obsfuscate the end date of this crime?

Are they protecting DPW?  Who should have insisted that The Second Mile put a protection plan in place to keep Sandusky away from children.

Or are they protecting The Second Mile?  Who knowingly let Sandusky access children after they knew he was under investigation?

As I wrote in last week's blogpost, Ganim wrote in her five part-series on The Second Mile (in August 2012) that the charity immediately banned Sandusky from interacting with children and advised him not to contact children in outside activities after learning of his investigation in November 2008.

Raykovitz, a well-known and respected child psychologist in central Pennsylvania, immediately removed Sandusky from all events involving children, and strongly urged him to stay away from children outside of charity functions, too.

However, that passage has been debunked because several news reports from The Progress, a local news outlet serving Clearfield, Curwensville, Philipsburg, and Moshannon Valley, reported that Sandusky would be speaking at the Clearfield County Chapter of The Second Mile's all sports banquet to be held on March 1, 2009.  From the article....

Dinner will follow at 5:30 p.m. in the high school cafeteria before those in attendance move to the auditorium where The Second Mile founder Jerry Sandusky will speak, and the players will share stories about their journeys to becoming collegiate student-athletes.


The evidence is clear in this case.  The Second Mile kept the Sandusky investigation under wraps and did not immediately prevent Sandusky from future access to children.

It's also clear that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare did not have an effective policing or enforcement method in place to ensure Sandusky's access was cut off.

The other thing that's clear is that some people in Harrisburg, the Patriot News, and Ganim don't want you to know about it.