THE SECOND MILE APPENDIX.

THIS IS THE APPENDIX TO TSM, CYS and DPW FAILED the VICTIMS of SANDUSKY

This is the Second Mile information

We've seen nothing of the Grand Jury testimony of Jack Raykovitz or heard anything from the parents of Second Mile kids who may have been harmed by that organizations failure to protect the kids entrusted to Second Mile. What did they know and when did they know it?

Raykovitz Did Not Inform Board Members of PSU Decision to Ban Sandusky It seems Sandusky and Raykovitz were close friends. This is the guy who was protecting Sandusky while running the Second Mile charity where JS took his victims. Why did Raykovitz keep Tim Curley's report about Jerry Sandusky from his board of directors? 

Raykovitz and his wife received $233,000. in annual salaries from Second Mile for the years following the notification by Tim Curley that Sandusky would no longer be allowed to bring kids to use PSU facilities. That adds up to over 2 million in salaries that were paid over 9 years to the guy who failed to investigate Second Mile internally to see if there were more kids taking showers with the founder. 2.7 million a year distributed by Second Mile somewhere 27 million dollars spent

Second Mile contributed $25,000 to then Attorney General Tom Corbett's campaign for Governor and board members contributed thousands more.

Second Mile knew of the 1998 investigation and Executive Director Raykovitz was informed of the PSU decision to ban Sandusky from bringing kids to workout at PSU in early 2002, but did nothing to restrict his access to children using Second Mile or to question kids about possible inappropriate behavior.

Second Mile CEO Raykovitz was assured by prosecutors that The Second Mile was not a target of investigation. 

Gov. Corbett Can’t Have It Both Ways in Penn State Case  the governor personally approved a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant to Sandusky’s Second Mile charity while Sandusky was under an investigation he started? 

Questions on the Way Corbett Handled Sandusky Investigation "How many more victims were victimized by Jerry Sandusky during the course of that three years? ... He should’ve been cuffed and stuffed as soon as the first allegation came in the door," Philadelphia attorney Dan McCaffery said. "Everybody talks about a bureaucratic breakdown at Penn State," said Lackawanna County attorney Kathleen Kane. "What about the Attorney General’s Office? It was either the product of politics or inexperience. And either way we cannot allow that."

Botched investigation by Corbett  "It was completely mishandled," one source close to the investigation told The Patriot-News. "I know these investigations take time, some of them, but someone should have been on this day and night from the beginning because of the severity" of the allegations. It wasn’t until early 2011 that The Second Mile — which Attorney General Linda Kelly said Sandusky used to find his victims — was officially notified by authorities of a child abuse investigation according to the Second Mile. Second Mile CEO Jack Raykovitz did not testify before the Grand Jury until April 2011. Why?

Sandusky charity faced contempt motion over missing records Pennsylvania state prosecutors filed a secret motion to hold The Second Mile children’s charity in contempt in July but was withdrawn in October after some of the  missing Sandusky records were found and produced, But the charity’s new lawyers are still looking for the rest of the subpoenaed material and seeking to determine whether the missing records were destroyed or removed in an effort to impede the investigation into Sandusky’s relationships with The Second Mile children

Did Second Mile Charity Do Enough To Protect Its Children From Sex Abuse? law experts say it was within Second Mile's grip to find out if its children were at risk for abuse. "If they really wanted to find out the truth, they could have," Jeff Herman, a Miami lawyer specializing in sex abuse cases told USA Today. "One allegation is a red flag. It puts you on notice. If after that point you don't do anything, it's on you." Herman said several Second Mile families had contacted him

Taking these revelations into account we are left with several burning questions.

• 1. Why did this investigation drag on for 3 years from 2008 until the presentment in Nov of 2011?
  2. How could it possibly take three years to check out the claims of victim 1 and charge JS?
  3. How could it take until April of 2011 to even interview Jack Raykovitz?
  4. How many more victims were abused after 2008 when Gov Corbett had victim One? 
  5. Why was The Second Mile not notified of the investigation until early 2011?
  6. Why didn't Jack Raykovitz take steps to protect The Second Mile Children in 98 or 02?
  7. Why didn't The Second Mile identify kids who were spending time with Sandusky?
  8. Is the Governor afraid of the consequences of his evident inaction and campaign donations?
  9. Is AG Linda Kelly covering for the Governor by making PSU her point of focus?
  10. Who benefited financially from 2.7 million in annual expenditures by The Second Mile?
  11. What is happening to the near 10 million in Second Mile assets?
  12. Did the failure to charge Sandusky in 2008 threaten the statute of limitations? 
  13. Did that failure lead to more victims? 
  14. Why didn't Raykovitz report McQueary's suspicions to child services? 
  15. Was Jack Raykovitz made aware of suspicions about JS from other Second Mile parents?
  16. Did anyone at Second Mile make inquiries to kids or families who spent time with JS?
  17. Were Corbett cronies beneficiaries of Second Mile money?
  18. How could Corbett approve a 3 million grant of Pa taxpayer money to 2nd Mile in 2010?
  19. Does it benefit Corbett and his party's office holders to implicate PSU as a distraction?

Dr. Jack Raykovitz and The Second Mile information link

Jerry Sandusky founded The Second Mile (2M or TSM) in 1977 some 34 years prior to his indictment and arrest in 2011. He worked very closely with his brain child for 30 years and for 18 of those years with Dr. Jack Raykovitz the CEO. Raykovitz has a Doctorate in Child Psychology from Penn State and is a long time State College resident. Dr Raykoviz and his wife both worked at the charity drawing $233,000 a year combined and under their watch the charity grew to 2.7 million dollars a year in annual donations and 9 million dollars in assets. 


In 2001 Jerry Sandusky was a paid consultant and public relations asset for The Second Mile drawing over 50,000 dollars in addition to his Penn State University retirement pension and the $168,000 severance package he received. Sandusky was no employed by Penn State in 2001 having retired in 1999 but he had emeritus status and a liaison relationship between 2M and PSU. 
.
Why did the 2011 Presentment and Press Release & Conference focus on the Penn State connection of Jerry Sandusky and not his place of employment where he acquired his victims? The Second Mile is not even mentioned as Attorney General Kelly aims her cannons at PSU. But Victim One was who launched the investigation in 2008 was never abused at PSU and there was no connection between him and Penn State. He came forward from Central Mountain High School where Sandusky had signed on as a volunteer coach.  
.
Why wasn't The Second Mile central to the Grand Jury Investigation since The Second Mile is the organization founded by Jerry Sandusky and the place were he stalked his prey? Ask yourself if there is some reasonable motive for the Attorney General to focus on the flimsy Penn State association and disregard the obvious Second Mile association? Is there a reason why the then AG now Gov got $25,000 from The Second Mile 600 thousand more from Second Mile Board Members? Some reason why he approved 3 million in grants for the charity in 2010? If someone really followed the money where would it lead?
1) With whom was Jerry Sandusky most associated? Obviously The Second Mile since his coaching days at PSU ended in 1999. How does the prosecution benefit from eliminating Second Mile from their investigation?
2) Who's jobs and income are at risk? Jobs and board positions were lost when Second Mile ended and it is certainly a significant threat to the Governor and Attorney General if it becomes common knowledge that the Governor took money from Second Mile while he was investigating if the investigation of Second Mile was limited as a result. Jack Raykovitz and his wife lost $233,000 in combined salaries. When Sandusky was arrested it was a matter of weeks before Second Mile was history and the Governor is scrambling to explain his actions in not returning a donation from a group he was investigating.
3) Did money change hands?
Former AG now  Gov Tom Corbett recieved $25,000 from Second Mile and over 600 thousand more from Second Mile board  members while he was prolonging the Jerry Sandusky investigation instead of immediately charging him with victim one's complaints. We have to ask whether or not the Executive Director, staff or volunteers at the Second Mile were aware of any complaints from other children about Jerry Sandusky who might have immediately come forward if the Victim one charges were immediately filed. 
The salary of Raykovitz and wife would have been and have been lost because of the scandal. We have 9 million in assets with 2.7 million a year budget that ended. Where did that 2.7 million per year or 24 million dollars after 2002 in revenue go. We need to know who benefited from the prolonged investigation and lack of action? And Second Mile receives a 3 million dollar taxpayer grant from Gov Corbett in 2010? Where is all that money? Second Mile had many volunteers, used school counselors, school facilities, and facilities at Penn State. See the Annual Report for "In Kind" donations. Where was the money spent?
4) The list of Second Mile donors and Board Members is Impressive
Board members can be found on the last page and donors throughout the 2010 Annual Second Mile Report They would obviously prefer not to be associated with an organization under investigation by the Attorney General. President Bush praised Second Mile as a "shining example of his Thousand Points of Light". Senator Rick Santorum honored Sandusky with an Angels in Adoption Award in 2002. Eagles Coaches Vermeil and Reid, owner R.R.M. Carpenter, Matt Millen of ESPN, actor Mark Wahlberg, and Golfer Arnold Palmer served on the board. Bob Poole was chairman of the Board of The Second Mile and part of a group that raised 125 million for a luxury retirement facility and golf course on Penn State property. The story here isn't that Joe Paterno was involved in this venture - it's the involvement of the others. Where are their names in this mess? Why is Joe singled out as the scapegoat? Prominent Second Mile benefactors were also benefactors to the campaigns of influential political figures. 
5) Linda Kelly and Frank Noonan's press conference along with the Grand Jury Presentment misled everyone making PSU the equal to Jerry Sandusky in this case to distract attention from The Second Mile and Attorney General Corbett's remarkably slow investigation and the donations his party received from The Second Mile's board. That is now a fact.

Why was Dr. Raykovitz never called to testify at his friend and employee's trial? The Second Mile CEO worked closely with Sandusky for 18 years and he knew about the 1998 and 2001 situations. Why wouldn't the defense call this man who worked with Sandusky for so long who evidently believed he was not molesting the kids he was responsible for protecting? Or why wasn't he called by he prosecution?  Well maybe he did know and did nothing about it but strangely the prosecution and AG are not going after Dr. Raykovitz for his failure to report as a mandated reporter employed by an organization that worked with children. Dr. Raykovitz refused to be interviewed by Freeh and it seems Freeh's group never spoke to anyone at The Second Mile. The woefully abbreviated section in the report is on pages 107 and 108 and mentions no interviews. 

WHY ISN'T JACK RAYKOVITZ THE KEY NAME TIED TO THE SECOND MILE SANDUSKY SCANDAL?

Given notification to Raykovitz from Tim Curley that actions suspicious enough to prompt PSU to deny JS access to PSU facilities in the company of children should that have prompted Raykovitz to make an effort to see if there was anything to the 1998 and 2002 investigations that required a closer look at Jerry Sandusky? Raykovitz was the only one told of the McQueary allegations who was by law required to report to child services and police. His job involved children as specified by the 2002 law. Why isn't he charged with failure to report? 

Jack Raykovitz   The Sandusky name is inextricably linked to the Second Mile much like Paterno's name and Penn State Football. Sandusky is not an employee of Penn State and at this point in 2002 he is no longer welcome to bring Second Mile kids on campus so the organization that is saddled with his situation clearly becomes The Second Mile. It is the Second Mile kids that are at risk and Jack Raykovitz who is responsible for the well being of The Second Mile kids. Where Curley and Schultz's responsibility is Penn State - Raykovitz expertise and responsibility is at risk children. This is clearly in his realm of concern and knowledge.  

The Second Mile already had programs in place *(see appendix b below) that would offer Raykovitz an easy way to interview the Second Mile kids. Counselors are available for the PEAK and CHALLENGE programs who could look for signs of abuse. It should have been easy for Second Mile to ascertain which kids were with Sandusky on a regular basis away from Second Mile facilities and have those kids interviewed by these counselors to see if abuse was possible. The Second Mile had significant resources *(see appendix A below) close to 10 million in assets and over 2.6 million in revenue. Spending some time and money to research any potential problem indicated by the 98 and 2002 reports would have been money well spent.

.

I'm not promoting a Second Mile,  Attorney General's Office and Gov Corbett conspiracy theory but how do we explain this obvious attempt by the Attorney General to make this into the Penn State Sex Scandal? It seems clear that theory 2 is far more plausible than any conspiracy at Penn State involving a cover up by Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz. There is clear motive, evidence, and opportunity for Theory Two - no motive, evidence or opportunity for Theory One. 

When the Attorney General's office tells Raykovitz that The Second Mile is not under investigation we are left to wonder why that is? All of the victims were Second Mile kids and that was this predators hunting ground. Corbett says McQueary failed his moral responsibility but what about the Governor as AG in 2008. Why was he not morally responsible for failure to notify The Second Mile or to indict Sandusky with the charges of Victim One in 2008? What about the moral responsibility of The Second Mile and exec Jack Raykovitz to inquire about other kids close to Sandusky who were their responsibility?

.

When The Second Mile learned from a Second Mile mother about the 1998 incident why was there no action taken by The Second Mile to restrict Jerry Sandusky from taking Second Mile kids to PSU or anywhere else? When it happened again in 2002 Jack Raykovitz now had two showering incidents - one that resulted in a full scale investigation in 98 and one that resulted in Sandusky putting the good relationship between Second Mile and PSU at risk. Did that not prompt Jack Raykovitz to question what he should do about Jerry Sandusky? Why didn't he protect his Second Mile kids by going to the police or child services? Surely Second Mile had a working relationship with Child Services. These showering incidents were causing problems for the institution that was helping his charity by providing facilities for their services. Did Second Mile tell Sandusky that it had to stop? Or did Raykovitz and his board approve of Sandusky showering with the kids of The Second Mile?

.

Once Sandusky was charged and the Presentment came out The Second Mile was finished. So it is quite clear that The Second Mile had by far the most to lose if Sandusky was charged and arrested.That is a motive for a cover up. The Second Mile lost everything along with the kids who were benefited by the Second Mile program. Maybe Raykovitz recognized that losing Sandusky to molestation charges would put an end to The Second Mile and the $233,000 in combined salaries enjoyed by his family. The annual 2.7 million dollars spent by The Second Mile would no longer be available. And there was a 3 million dollar grant from the Gov in 2010? Where did all that money go? 

.

Penn State thought a service to kids was being performed by arranging events on campus and at campus facilities but the welfare of The Second Mile kids was not Penn State's primary responsibility. That responsibility rightly belongs to The Second Mile and Jack Raykovitz and his board. Now we have identified a problem that might have negative impact on donors and board members associated with the charity. This brings to mind the Pennsylvania detention center "jail youth for profit" scandal. Is it possible there was some fraud in the funding of The Second Mile? Who is looking into the 2.7 million "expenses" to see how that money was spent and who benefited from 9 years of inaction after Raykovitz was informed of the 2nd showering incident and did nothing? 34 Million dollars includes Second Miles assets and revenues since 2002. Who got it and why?

.

There is no need for a conspiracy theory to question the actions of Second Mile Executive Director Jack Raykovitz for failure to notify his board or to launch an internal investigation of Jerry Sandusky's contact with Second Mile kids. We don't need a conspiracy theory to question the actions of the Governor taking 3 years to notify Second Mile of the investigation when he was Attorney General or his acceptance of Second Mile donations for his campaign while he was investigating. No conspiracy theory is required to question the AG's office informing Raykovitz that Second Mile was not a target or her making this Second Mile Sandusky Sex scandal into the Penn State Sex Scandal.

Gov Corbett explains away his failure to return donations from Second Mile as an effort to avoid tipping off Second Mile about the investigation. Can you believe that? How does that make any sense? Second Mile should not only be tipped off but employed to locate other potential victims. Why was Corbett concerned about tipping off Second Mile? Did he expect they would cover up abuse? If so why wasn't The Second Mile a prime target of the investigation instead of a source of campaign donations and recipient of grant millions? 

.

Notifying The Second Mile in 2008 and asking them to find all of their kids who spent time with Sandusky and to have counselors interview them in order to identify victims seems like a no-brainer. But we have an investigation that started with Victim One in 2008 that took three long years. Victim One alone was worthy of charges being levied against Sandusky and his immediate arrest. If the Statute of Limitations comes into play this is a massive mistake. If any more kids were molested after 2008 the AG and her predecessor are responsible. Raykovitz knew in March of 2002 about a 2nd showering incident that banned JS from taking his kids to PSU - he could have stopped Sandusky in 2002 if he had acted to warn The Second Mile families and maybe child services.

.

The net effect of this public pillorying of Penn State will be to dampen the enthusiasm of institutions to support children's charities and will wipe out the good things The Second Mile did for underprivileged kids. There is no doubt some very good people did good things for underprivileged kids through The Second Mile, but this catastrophic failure on the part of Sandusky's friend Jack Raykovitz to stop Sandusky when he had to know his Second Mile kids were at least showering naked with a grown man in questionable circumstances was intolerable and inexcusable. Jack was the man close to Sandusky and the kids. Jack is the guy who knew of both showering situations. Jack is the man who should be under the microscope because he is the man with 2 million in salary and control of 34 million more who did nothing to protect the Second Mile kids his organization should have protected. Raykovitz is the one guy required by law to report the 2002 McQueary suspicions. Not Paterno, Not Curley or Schultz (see Appendix C) but Jack Raykovitz.

The new and proper list of responsible parties in the Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal

1. Jerry Sandusky
2. Jack Raykovitz
3. Tom Corbett
4. Linda Kelly
5. Frank Noonan

Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were perhaps gullible in believing that Jerry Sandusky was a good man who built a fine charity and fostered six kids as a selfless act. They had no reason to believe otherwise. They may have been fooled into dismissing Mike McQueary's muddled suspicions in favor of their regard for Jerry Sandusky. But they were not Jack Raykovitz and charged with the well being of The Second Mile kids and required by law to report suspicions. Their chief concern was as a football coach and as PSU administrators. They notified the man who was responsible for The Second Mile - a most reasonable solution under the circumstances they knew in 2002. They don't deserve the insane attack of the Attorney General who should be focused on the kids of The Second Mile and the responsible people in that organization which includes Jerry Sandusky. Penn State in this case was a building used by a predator not an institution organized to be responsible for kids. I can support Jesse's solution of a campus SUV and a policy denying the use of facilities to children without university affiliated parents. But I am not longer on the fence about the propriety of the actions of Paterno, Curley or Schultz - reporting McQueary's less than definitive suspicions to Jack Raykovitz was the proper thing to do. He was the man responsible for Sandusky and the Second Mile kids with the resources and knowledge to deal with the situation. 

The Governor, Attorney General and Police Commissioner want you to believe that Paterno, Curley, and Schultz could have stopped a child predator in 2002 but they don't want you to look at Jack Raykovitz and his cozy relationship with Sandusky where the problem really existed - at the intersection where The Second Mile involves the kids and Jack Raykovitz knew of the 98 and 02 complaints and did nothing even though he was the man responsible for those kids and required by law to report suspicions. Why don't they want that closer look? 

So vote in the poll and add your comments about who you think is most culpable and most likely to have conspired to cover up their actions or inaction. As usual your recs, comments, votes, and likes are most appreciated. And if you need another answer added to the poll to fit your opinion let me know in the comments. -

Aurabass - The hookah smoking caterpillar down the rabbit hole in Wonderland

APPENDIXES

While Second Mile is nowhere near Penn State in revenues and assets it is still a considerable entity
REVENUES
 Individuals $ 438,308 Corporations 633,880Foundations 361,783Organizations 57,833Special Events Income $ 1,030,384Special Projects 147,944 Total Revenues $ 2,689,396 

EXPENSES Who gets this money?

Community Education $ 290,080Foster Care 241,295Friend/Friend Fitness 398,362Fundraising 423,586General Programs 239,640Leadership Institute 247,567Management and General 269,099 $233,000 go to Raykovitz and wife.Nittany Lion Tips 131,090Prevention: Ed & Awareness for Kids (PEAK) 31,988Summer Challenge 571,318 Total Expenses $ 2,844,025

NET ASSETS $ 9,142,485

Among programs offered by the charity that include counseling on self-awareness and self-esteem: PEAK
• Prevention: Education and Awareness for Kids (PEAK) is a series of videotapes and a play kit that highlight issues such as peer pressure, rejection, and selfesteem. There are currently three modules available to educators, with more than 2,075 school counselors currently using them.
Early Intervention Programs Challenge
• This year, The Second Mile helped 782 young people develop the skills they need to succeed through its Challenge Program. During their week-long session of residence, Challenge Program participants set behavior and academic goals and decide on community service projects for the upcoming school year. Through encouragement and a positive environment, collegiate counselors, professional staff, and volunteers guide the children to work on self-awareness and skills in conflict resolution and effective communicationDuring the following year, participants use these new skills to earn their way back to the Challenge Program by meeting their goals. The Second Mile offers year-round support to participants, their families, and their counselors through written, phone, or in-person contact to assist in the child’s efforts to achieve his or her goals. During the 2009-2010 school year, The Second Mile staff made 9,308 contacts to participants and 6,924 contacts to school counselors to help them stay connected to the program and focused on their goals. We also held 32 mid-year events, attended by 1,295 participants and their families.

Appendix C Who to Blame: To those of you who blame Spanier, Curley or Schultz as culpable in this Sandusky situation: You are stuck with Kelly's cover up conspiracy theory. The Attorney General has to make a case for cover up in order to supply a motive. Think about that before you react. Why would Curley or Schultz sweep a credible accusation by Mike McQueary under the rug? Why can't you accept that Curley and Schultz heard Mike's account, compared it to their view of the charity founder and foster father of six who they knew and chose to notify The Second Mile where Sandusky spent his time and the key responsibility for the Second Mile kids resided? The Second Mile had the reasons to check on Sandusky and they were the experts on kids. They had the resources, the people, the responsibility and they were the ones who's children were at risk. Why blame PSU, Paterno, Curley or Schultz when you have Kelly, Corbett, and Raykovitz?
And why take Mike McQueary's word over the word of Schultz and Curley? Mike's statements have evidently been contradictory. He's the guy who did not bother to ask the boy if he was in need of help. He couldn't even ask Sandusky what was happening. He left the boy with Sandusky. He appeared to be fine with everything when Joe asked him. He continued to participate in Second Mile events. I am having trouble understanding why thinking the worst of Tim Curley or Gary Schultz seems so popular even here on BSD. I don't get the desire to blame Gary and Tim for thinking Jerry Sandusky was a good guy under the circumstances in 2002. Have Linda Kelly's lies and distortions had her desired effect even here?
I don't think Mike McQueary is a bad guy. I suspect he has been guilt tripped by the Attorney General into embellishing his account after learning the extent of Jerry Sanduskys crimes. He wishes he had done more to confirm his suspicions that night in 2002. He wishes he had not run out of that locker room and he's trying to make up for it. Either way I don't see that making Curley or Schultz into pedophile enablers or even mistaken. It's difficult to clear our minds of what we know now and look dispassionately at March of 2002 when Sandusky was known as a good guy and all was right at Penn State. Curley told Raykovitz and in a perfect world without a clever monster that would be the right thing to do.  

Crime and Punishment: How Mark Emmert destroyed Penn State Football without a Scintilla of Evidence

CRIME & PUNISHMENT: How Mark Emmert Destroyed PSU continued

What was the right choice in 1998?

In 1998, there was a confidential police investigation that included District Attorney oversight and an investigation by The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare (DPW). In fact, the abundance of evidence indicates that the DPW, despite having access to their hotline whistleblower, a PhD psychiatrist, and her clear report that Sandusky was a pedophile in the grooming stages, and the police investigative actions, failed to do a thorough investigation. The DPW conducted a rushed “investigation”, brought in an unlicensed expert to conduct cold interviews and quickly filed a report with the DA indicating not only no crime, but no evidence of any behavior typical of a pedophile.

This report, no crime/no pedophile, was made by a government agency whose core mission includes protecting children in Pennsylvania. This report was filed despite hard evidence to the contrary by the whistleblower, Dr. Chambers.

Mr. Emmert penalties start in 1998 so he clearly felt that Penn State and the football program did not make the right choice at that time.

Likely, unless laws were broken and confidential information leaked, the football program did not have access to the details available to the DA and DPW. The Athletic Director and coach may (or one or both may not have) known that an investigation took place and Sandusky cleared. There is no hard evidence that they knew any details.

It should have been incumbent on Mr. Emmert to explain why he thought PSU had enough information in 1998 to make a right choice and what that choice should have been.

Let’s give Emmert huge leeway with his thinking about 1998. Let’s assume PSU should have assumed that the existence of an investigation of a senior employee alone was a basis for making a right choice in 1998.

So what is the most aggressive action that PSU could have taken in 1998?

PSU was Sandusky’s employer in 1998. They could have fired him based on unacceptable behavior by a senior employee (showering and physical contact with a minor). Since he was not charged criminally, the university would have been limited to a confidential severance agreement, that are typical and could have included severing all access and ties to the university. Perhaps paying for counseling and breaking ties with The Second Mile would have been included in the right choice at the right time. The victim was already under expert psychiatric care.

My guess is the actions above might have satisfied Emmert’s standard of the right choice. If done at the conclusion of the DA’s case, Emmert might agree that it would meet the right time standard.

What proof exists that “hero worship, the “culture of sport” and “winning at any cost” were motivation for PSU to not make the right choice at the right time in 1998?

Let’s move on to motivation for not making the right choice in 1998.

Freeh offered inconclusive emails that Joe Paterno might have had knowledge of an investigation. That proves nothing, even if true. Paterno would not have been entitled to any detailed information of a criminal investigation other than the conclusion.

Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier knew of the investigation and did not make the right choice at the time according to Emmert’s standard. But why didn’t they? What information did they have? Freeh doesn’t tell us.

All of the evidence in Freeh’s report indicates they believed it was not a serious matter, i.e. investigated and no criminal findings. Isn’t it more likely that their inaction was driven by inadequate information, poor judgment or other factors?

Where is the hard proof that allowed Emmert (Freeh) to conclude that the culture of hero worship and culture of sport was the motivation for Graham Spanier as top guy at PSU to not to make the right choice in 1998.

The Freeh report doesn’t provide any proof that Spanier and others believed they were not making the right choices in 1998. So Freeh speculates, and Emmert accepts, that the leaders conspired to not take more action to protect Paterno and his football program. Further Emmert does not focus on his fellow PhD University President, Dr. Spanier, but makes prejudicial unfair derisive references to the football coach (“hero worship”). Likewise, Freeh uses a bundling technique of “the four most senior leaders” of PSU, as if they are all equals and operated in concert…. both false inferences.

Speculation is not proof….not even close. I can speculate a higher probability reason that no action was taken in 1998 than the populist notion of all about protecting Paterno/football. Speculation is educated guessing. The penalties are too severe to be based on speculation of motive.

The burden is on Mr. Emmert to provide hard evidence and prove the motivation for PSU not making what he believes would have been right choices. If the motive was not football, the NCAA does not have a basis to act.

Freeh did not prove the motive. An opinion by Mr. Freeh is opinion not fact. There is no evidence in the Freeh report that proves or even suggests that protecting the hero worship culture of Paterno / football was a motivation for not making the right choice at the right times.

There is no evidence that anyone believed they were failing to make the right choice.

Freeh and Emmert downplayed the PA Dept. of Welfare, the adult experts in the room, whose investigator Mr. Lauro’s incompetence or willful actions missed leads that easily should have exposed Sandusky. Yet, we are to conclude that a football coach should have solved this puzzle, even after the DPW and DA gave it an all clear. Nonsense.

What would have been the adverse impact on PSU football and Paterno had the right choice, as inferred by Emmert, been made in 1998?

Short answer is Nothing.

Sandusky retires a year earlier and a strong confidential agreement is negotiated.

What would have been the impact on Emmert’s concept of “hero worship”, i.e. admiration for Paterno? Again nothing. Impact on winning football games? Nothing. Impact on recruiting? Nothing. Impact on football revenues? Nothing.

Conclusion for 1998 events: some argument but not a no brainer, that more “right choices” could have been made; zero proof that right choices not made because of culture of hero worship / football; zero evidence that making the right choices would have had significant damage to Paterno/football.

Any reasonable executive would easily conclude that not doing the right thing is the riskiest choice. Emmert wants us to believe that these smart guys got together and decided hey let’s do the wrong thing or this will embarrass Joe and PSU football. Utter nonsense and unencumbered by any facts.

Let’s look at 2001:

First, it’s not clear what all four knew from McQueary, as there are conflicting reports and a decade later of reconstructing very brief discussions. What is clear is that McQueary did not report seeing rape.

Let’s go with benefit of doubt again and say that despite it looking like a repeat of 1998 DPW conclusions, that PSU should have done more even though not clear who had what information.

The “right choice at the right time” might have been for PSU to report McQueary’s account to police, DA, and Pa DPW. Further the right choice might have included reopening the retirement agreement, regardless of criminal findings, and banning Sandusky access to PSU for life and leveraging TSM charity to do likewise. It might also include trying to identify and help the alleged victim. I’m presuming these potential actions would have satisfied Emmert as a right choice in 2001, especially if the incompetent DPW didn’t fail to properly investigate as done in 1998 and follow the lead to victims identified years later and break the case wide open.

PSU did not make those choices. Who/Why? Mr. Freeh’s report, not his opinionated executive summary, simply provides no evidence that the decision to not make the right choice was based on preserving Joe Paterno’s so called hero status or protecting their storied football program. Freeh cannot even determine who made the call to do nothing.

All of the evidence indicates that the reason for not acting was same as 1998. In this case Mr. Schultz testified that he felt no crime was committed. Spanier said it was not a huge deal to him and he thought it involved horseplay, something that was not out of character for Sandusky.

But who has the burden of proof here? Clearly it rests with Mr. Emmert to explain why and how he concluded that 2001 failure to make the right choice was all about football.

There are other very plausible possibilities such as simply poor judgment / different moral compass of Mr. Spanier. Others include a potential destruction of The Second Mile, probably one of the higher profile children's charities in the country. Another possibility is empathy for Sandusky and not wrecking his life because he pushes boundaries as concluded by the PA Dept. of Public Welfare in 1998. Clearly Schultz and Spanier may have concluded that it was 1998 revisited…that is boundary issues with no evidence of assault….the 2012 jury found Sandusky not guilty of the 2001 event. Spanier may have reasoned that informing Second Mile, banning children, and asking TSM to help Sandusky was a reasonable choice.

So given multiple potential reasons for not making the right choice at the right time in 2001, only one is offered up, that being hero worship/football, and no credible evidence to support that finding. Other credible possibilities are not investigated and ruled out.

What was the advantage to Paterno, the subject of hero worship, and the culture of sports by not making the right choice in 2001?

If the right choice was made, and the resulting investigation would have broken the case (no guarantee), it would clearly have been a huge embarrassment for PSU to have such a revered figure turn out to be a serial child abuser / criminal. It would have raised questions about 1998. Penn State would argue that 1998 was handled properly and eventually someone might have found the real scandal – the Pa Dept. of Welfare had the info to solve this case in 1998 and failed to do so.

Emmert concludes that Penn State University did not make the right choices at the right time in 2001 because doing the right thing would have damaged Joe Paterno and their storied football program. Usually, doing the right thing doesn’t destroy anything, doing the wrong thing is another story.

Ask yourself, had Penn State done the right thing in 2001, per an assumed but very strict Emmert standard, would football revenues, recruiting, reputation been severely damaged. You can only answer yes if someone could prove that they knew Sandusky was a pedophile long before 2001 and 1998. There is zero proof of that.

Mr. Emmert has levied the most punitive sanctions in the history of sports. The economic and collateral damage to students, businesses, athletes, students, state revenues, Big ten revenues, alumni and other is likely staggering. All of this might was directed at football because he declared football to be the problem.

Yet there is no proof that football nor some notion lazily and prejudicially called “hero worship” motivated the President of PSU to not make the right choices that Emmert felt should have been made. There is also no reasonable evidence that had the right choices been made, anyone other than Jerry Sandusky might have been seriously impacted outside of normal embarrassment when a high profile revered figure fails. Did Mark McGuire’s juicing bring down Tony LaRusso and the St Louis Cardinals?

Where there is an abundance of evidence over decades is that PSU football culture included strict policy enforcement for academics, recruiting, BCS leading graduation rates, and discipline such as benching some of their greatest players in bowl games for minor infractions.

Joe Paterno asserted late in his life that the Sandusky scandal was not a football scandal. Mr. Emmert, it wasn’t the football coach, who was making the wrong choices. If wrong choices were made the buck stops with your fellow PHD and University President. He too deserves the right to defend his actions as he maintains he made the right choices and was given no opportunity to testify.

So Mr. Emmert, the fact that you rendered a punishment that will create a decade of destruction without hearings, zero due process and only with a media windstorm in your sails says one thing:

Mark Emmert, YOU made the wrong choice at the wrong time. You had to have football as the motive; otherwise you could not justify your jurisdiction.

There is no reason to believe that had Sandusky been a Professor of Biology that Spanier would have done anything differently. There is strong evidence to support that speculation, since a non-football charge of sexual abuse was presented to Spanier and he rejected it outright.

Someone, or some Court needs to stop you before more damage is done. The sanctions were a gross overreach based entirely on assigning a motive rather than proving one.

Suspend these sanctions and conduct open hearings to get the facts as to what motivated Penn State University to do less than what you believe should have been done. If the motive proves to be football protection, reinstate the sanctions. If you can’t prove it was football/sports driven, revoke the sanctions, apologize and go back in your box and reinstate due process at the NCAA.

Thomas Greene Six Mile South Carolina

NCAA sanctions: The third option

FROM Reed Meyer, Ph.D. Penn State 1993 to the PSU Board of Trustees 
Continued from page one 

Is there surely not a third option on the table?  Why is the Board apparently not considering the third option of fighting the NCAA in federal court?  Would Penn State not stand a very good chance of winning such a lawsuit?  One would think that a federal court would be sympathetic to Penn State for several reasons.  

Penn State can argue that the NCAA should be treated as a state actor for these purposes, by virtue of its appearing to now rule on criminal-only matters and by virtue of its national monopoly (it is unreasonable to expect a competitor organization to successfully out-compete the NCAA at the large college level). As a state actor, the NCAA is culpable of not following its own bylaws, of not following due process, and (if attempting to change its bylaws retroactively to justify sanctioning Penn State) of unreasonably changing its bylaws ex post facto.  

The NCAA also violated its more-democratic infractions procedure, replacing it with an ad hoc authoritarian system consisting of a single man passing judgment and imposing sanctions.  It based its sanctions on a single document, which one of its own authors has stated was never intended for such a purpose, and which has been accused of drawing serious accusations against Penn State from extremely thin evidence.  There is also the question of whether the NCAA illegally strong-armed Penn State into a hasty acquiescence.  A federal lawsuit would also allow more opportunity and more time for proper investigations to take place.  Members of the legal profession across the country are apparently eager to see this play out in court, as they are worried about the precedents that would be set if the NCAA's actions were to go unchallenged.

You, the members of the Board, may have sound reasons for why you do not think it wise to pursue such a third option.  Because this decision impacts the University's reputation in such a significant and lasting way (see below), I feel that you should share with the members of the Penn State community your reasoning against this third option.

If you believe that a lawsuit would further drag down the reputation of our University, I acknowledge that line of thinking, but let me show why I think that should not be a concern -- that, if anything, the reputation would only improve.

I share with you a great concern for our University's reputation, and I am not motivated solely out of love for the University; there are also selfish reasons.  I am concerned for my and my fellow graduates' future employability; in multiple occurrences appearing in the media, employers have threatened to fire or to not hire Penn State graduates solely because of a perceived group culpability in the Sandusky affair.  The value of our diplomas may also be weakened if the University's stained reputation results in difficulties in attracting a talented faculty, or in attracting research funding.

The Board's actions, thus far, seem to indicate that its members believe that the best way to improve the University's reputation is to "put things behind us" as soon as possible.  But there are problems with this approach.  In the public's eye, the Board's and administration's actions have been akin to accepting blame.  By appearing to accept blame, the stain is not reduced; it deepens, and it PERSISTS.  There is a good chance that the University's name would have been partially if not fully cleared, had time been allowed for a thorough, proper investigation to have been conducted -- it is therefore doubly regrettable that a university should "admit guilt" when there may have never been a genuine reason to.

History has shown time and again that when an entity appears to accept blame, its reputation, with regard to the event in question, does not significantly improve.  The event will slowly disappear from people's minds over time, but that is true whether blame is accepted or not, and, regardless of the passage of time, people will return to a negative view of the entity whenever they are reminded of the event.  History has also shown that people who had, a priori, a negative view towards an entity will simply reinforce that view when that entity appears to accept blame.  History has furthermore shown that some people react more emotionally than rationally when it comes to allegations of failing to protect children.  For these reasons, it is futile to accept blame without good cause, or to rush to "put things behind us".  In essence, there is no pleasing certain people, and therefore one's reputation cannot grow worse by insisting on due process; and
the other group of people, the more rational or sympathetic ones, will be understanding when you call for fairness and the facts in order to make a sound decision.

I believed in November of 2011, and continue to believe to this day, that the Board's best course of action for protecting the reputation of the University should have been to stand firm in the face of all onslaughts, from the media or from other quarters.  It should have insisted on following due process, and on neither taking action nor publicly voicing opinion until a thorough investigation had been conducted.  The Board should never have imposed on itself the conditions it did when it commissioned the Freeh report.  It should never have accepted or appeared to accept a report that was so lean on facts and so heavy on inflammatory accusations mostly unsupported by facts.  It should have fought any sanctions based on such a flawed report.  It should have only attempted to "put things behind us" when all the facts were truly in.

If unwilling to fight the NCAA in federal court, is it possible for the University to issue language such as, "The sanctions of the NCAA are accepted under protest, and without definitive evidence of any wrongdoing on the University's part"?

Sincerely yours,

Reed Meyer, Ph.D.
Penn State 1993

Senior VP Gary Schultz Perjury Fiasco

The Perjury charge against VP Gary Schultz are based on his Grand Jury Testimony and they are lacking any merit whatsoever.
First we have to remember this testimony is about recollections of a 10 to 12 minute meeting with Mike McQueary and Tim Curley about 10 days after McQueary's 45 second visit to a locker room in the Lasch football facility on the Penn State campus. McQueary's testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing for the Perjury and Failure to Report charges gave us the following information:
McQueary heard 2 or 3 slapping sounds he characterizes as "rhythmic and sexual"
McQueary "glanced" into the showers through a mirror for 1 or 2 seconds
McQueary then moved to where he could glance into the showers directly and he saw Sandusky's back and the side of a boy standing in front of Sandusky. The boy's head came to Sandusky's pectoral muscles. He saw this with little or no motion for 1 or 2 seconds.
McQueary then slammed his locker door and walked to where Sandusky and the boy could see him. They were standing 4 feet apart and there was no pain or distress on the boy's face
McQueary said nothing to either and immediately left the boy there with Sandusky and went upstairs to call his father. He did not return to the shower room to see if they had left.
McQueary then met with his father and Dr. Jonathan Dranov at his father's home. They advised him not to call police but to report the incident to his boss Joe Paterno
McQueary did not tell Joe Paterno what he suspected in graphic detail
McQueary then met with Schultz and Curley after Paterno set up the meeting.

McQueary claims he was adamant about suspecting a sexual act in his meeting with Curley and Schultz. Curley and Schultz indicate their rather vague recollections of the 12 minute meeting did not indicate that a crime had been committed. The Attorney General wants us to believe this difference in recollections of that meeting 10 years ago constitutes perjury.

As you scan through the images of the testimony click on an image and you will be able to see it in full readable size and you can use this utility to click through every image. I have provided the pages of the transcript that deal with the recollections and impressions of the meeting with McQueary, Curley, and Schultz so you can try to find the perjury.

First lets look at Schultz'a Testimony to the Grand Jury read into the record at the Perjury Preliminary Hearing:

Shultz's memory of a 10 or 12 minute meeting a decade back is quite different than Curley's recollection. He believes that either he or Tim contacted Child Protective Services - the same agency that investigated the 1998 incident when a mother of a Second Mile child complained to police about a shower incident between her son and Sandusky.

In the interest of this post I want the reader to identify the statements by Schultz above that constitute Perjury. What has he said above that is misleading or a deliberate lie known to him to be such?

Now It Begins - The First Assault on the Attorney General's Case

Lawyers for Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have filed motions for dismissal of charges and to compel the Attorney General to provide particulars in the Perjury and Failure to Report cases against their clients
This is something expected since the Perjury and Failure to Report charges were filed against Gary Schultz - Former Senior VP and this follows the same motions filed by Tim Curley the Athletic Director yesterday to dismiss the charges filed by Attorney General Linda Kelley. These charges seemed bogus and flimsy from the beginning. I speculated that the charges might not make it past the preliminary hearing but the judge was not interested in hearing about testimony concerning Dr Dranov and he was not going to toss the case out the door as should have been done.
Remember that Perjury charges in Pennsylvania require corroboration beyond any opposing versions of what might have been said between 3 people in a private meeting. Since only Curley, Schultz and Mike McQueary heard whatever was said in a "10 or 12 minute meeting" back in March of 2002 it is completely impossible to have corroboration if no notes, minutes, or recordings of that meeting exist.
Both Curley and Schultz felt they did not hear evidence of a criminal act and we have no way of knowing what McQueary said to them or how indicative of any criminal act it may or may not have been.
As far as the law in 2002 concerns being compelled to report suspicious behavior goes we know what that law says and it's evident that the attorneys don't believe the administrators are compelled under that law.

Curley and Schultz were not informed of a sexual assault by Paterno or McQueary. At best McQueary told them about "inappropriate contact of a sexual nature" - a far cry from sexual assault.Why did the Attorney General claim Schultz and Curley were required to report suspicions?

Top administration officials at PSU, Curley and Schultz, after receiving a report of the sexual assault from both a graduate assistant and the coach Paterno, failed to report the incident, as required by law

The law in 2002 did not require Paterno, Curley or Schultz to report suspicions but Raykovitz was subject to that law. Does the Attorney General not know the law?

The 2002 law required that the abused child come directly in contact with a person in his or her professional capacity in order for that person to be considered a mandatory reporter. The law was then amended in 2007 to broaden the reporting requirements

Second Mile CEO implicated in failure to report in Sandusky scandal

Raykovitz has not been charged in the sex-abuse scandal even though PA law says anyone who works with children must report suspicions of child abuse " "A fair reading of the statute would implicate the CEO of the charity in the event he received a report or information regarding possible abuse,"

Raykovitz with a PhD in psychology was the CEO of the Second Mile subject to the Pennsylvania Mandatory Reporting law as a psychologist and head of an organization that constantly dealt with children. Why was Raykovitz not charged with failure to report? Raykovitz was in a position of responsibility for the victims of Jerry Sandusky who was being paid by The Second Mile and a trained psychologist who could have located and interviewed Second Mile kids with whom Sandusky spent time

The Motions filed on behalf of Curley and Schultz maintain through a Memorandum of Law that the State has failed to provide the particulars as required to prosecute these charges This makes the Attorney General's office appear to be quite incompetent. Perjury is a very specific offense. It requires proof backed up by two witnesses or one witness with corroboration that a witness under oath made statements known by him ot be false. Those particular statements must be provided and they have not been provided by the state.



These dismissal motions should lead to the end of this bogus part of the state's case that led to the idea this was a Penn State Scandal involving some cover up by the university and start the ball rolling on shifting the blame for the longevity of this situation to the former Attorney General now Governor and Second Mile where it belongs.
It appears that the Attorney General's office cannot provide the particulars because there are none that apply to Curley and Schultz and when these charges are dismissed it will leave the the Attorney General with much explaining to be done. We can only hope that the dismissal of the charges will receive the same publicity that was aimed at PSU when these bogus charges were filed. Having charges dismissed in a case like this should show the public that the Attorney General's office was complicit in a cover up on behalf of the Attorney General and the Governor.

Positive Media on the Sandusky Scandal - How Do We Use It?

Just in case you've wondered where you might point your friends to media reports that were not articles written here on BSD there are a few that are quite good and useful for pointing out the truth. They just haven't gotten enough notice to counter the tsunami of negative press. 

Three False Assertions by the Grand Jury turned the Press and Public against Joe Paterno and Penn State by Walter Uhler 

This might be the best article yet written questioning the misleading work of the Attorney General Linda Kelly. I saw this article in a fanshot but it needs more notice. Uhler has written 5 additional stories that actually got at the truth of what happened. 5 Story Series 

It's not that there haven't been any articles or stories that were kinder to Penn State than the mass of stories in the National Media Frenzy sparked by the lies and distortions of the Attorney General. They are simply few and far between and can be counted on our fingers as opposed to the 100's of negative stories broadcast and in the press. A few are listed beyond the jump   

Michael McCann: Sandusky grand jury presentment doesn't tell the whole story

We still have much to learn about what happened at Penn State and the relationship between the school, its officials and Sandusky.  We may learn new pieces of information that reshape how we assign blame and how we reconcile what appears to be immoral, almost inhuman decision-making by those we thought to be worthy of our respect and admiration.

It Was A Witch Hunt at Penn State - This is particularly interesting now we are questioning the actions of former Attorney General now Governor Tom Corbett 

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, we learned, was pushing for the trustees to clean house. Why? Because Corbett does not like now-former Penn State President Graham Spanier (who also lost his job). Corbett did not like to do battle with Spanier, who has backed Paterno through the years, over appropriations for the state-related university. Bingo, here's a perfect opportunity for the governor to get rid of his problem and his underlings.

Maybe Joe Paterno Isn’t a Hypocrite and a Fraud

I was among those who threw former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno under the bus for his turning a blind eye to the rape allegations involving former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. In a November column, I called Paterno a “hypocrite and a fraud.”

Harris: JoePa deserves an apology 

Ritchie Reacts To Sandusky Scandal

Echoes of Duke Lacrosse? 

Public ignorance has become the currency of the Sandusky scandal. Not willful ignorance, although surely there have been ample amounts of that, but a more ordinary, everyday, lack-of-basic-information, we-just-don't-have-it-yet type of ignorance. It is terrifyingly obvious that many people are operating off shards of factoids and little else, and drawing broad conclusions based upon those shards

Questions Raised on Accuracy of Key Witness Statements 

The details of what Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant for Penn State's powerhouse football team, did or didn't witness in a shower where former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky allegedly was sexually assaulting a 10-year-old will be parsed Tueday during a scheduled preliminary hearing on the merits of the evidence in the case.

Excerpts from the lead story with comments (and I pat my own back for sending my last 4 posts to Walter Uhler prior to his writing this article as mentioned here and I've asked his permission to get it out to as many readers as possible) Five Part Study of Jackals and Jackasses of the Media  and here The Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal 

First we have to remember how the Grand Jury investigation works:

"When the prosecutor has no further evidence to put before the grand jury, the jurors are asked to consider a presentment recommending that specific persons be charged with specific crimes. After considering this request in closed deliberations, the grand jury may ask to hear more evidence or may question the addition or exclusion of certain persons from the list of persons against whom charges are to be recommended. If the grand jury agrees to consider a presentment, prosecutors prepare a draft document which summarizes the evidence the grand jury has heard and sets out specific, recommended charges. The grand jury considers this document in secret proceedings. If twelve or more of the 23 permanent grand jurors agree, the presentment is 'returned' and submitted to the supervising judge for his approval." ["Investigating the Investigating Grand Jury -- What It Is, What It Does," by Andrea F. McKenna, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Appeals and Legal Services, Criminal Law Division, Pennsylvania Attorney General website]

Remember that the Presentment is written by the prosecutors who present it to the Grand Jury for a vote. And there is no doubt that the Presentment coming out of the Attorney General's office is approved if not written by the Attorney General in a case this big. Given that we now know that 3 times prior to the Grand Jury that finally voted to bring the charges, the Attorney General and her prosecutors failed to get 12 jurors to vote for the presentment. 

Trustees warned of prior probes we just learned there were three prior GJ investigations with no charges 

What that means is at least 3 times the 12 grand jurors and a judge failed to approve the final summary prepared by the prosecutors and released to the public prior to 5 November 2011. And that means we know who to blame for the incendiary errors that the summary contains in the approved Presentment. 

The approved grand jury presentment listed 8 unidentified boys allegedly abused by Sandusky and it contained extremely graphic language, designed not only to capture accurately the sordid nature of some of the assaults, but also to shock the reading and viewing public into outrage that demanded justice. According to the grand jury report some of Sandusky's despicable assaults occurred while he was still serving on Joe Paterno's football coaching staff and some of them occurred after he retired in 1999. There's no denying there were enough disturbing allegations in the report to merit the charges brought against Sandusky. But these allegations also drew the public's attention to his former boss, legendary Joe Paterno and Penn State's football program.

Although the Attorney General denies that Joe Paterno was a target or guilty of breaking any law it is clear that her language and the manner in which the presentment was laid out it would be difficult for anyone to reach that conclusion. The Victim 2 allegations were buried in the graphic accounts of six actual identified victims leading everyone to think Victim 2 was like the rest. - an actual complaining identified victim.

Many Americans took the grand jury presentment (or thoughtless reporting about it) as gospel and, predictably, expressed outrage that was off the charts. A distant relative asked me: "What do you think about all those pedophiles running around Penn State?" When, I corrected him by saying, "There's just one alleged pedophile, as far as I know," he responded by saying, "When there's one, there are many more." Can a person be any dumber than that? Often, so-called news reporters were just as idiotic. Consider the news article that gave the impression that Penn State had failed to report the assaults of all eight victims. Or the report that one of the assaults took place at Paterno's house.

These reactions were and are common among people who have not read Black Shoe Diaries since the Presentment was made public. Most people read the media accounts and believe everything from "Joe Paterno was the pedophile" to "All of the victims were assaulted at Penn State and Joe Paterno and others there knew but covered it up to protect the football program"

What really transformed so many lazy and mediocre reporters into jackals and so many lazy and ignorant citizens into jackasses -- all fulminating in righteous indignation against Joe Paterno and Penn State -- were three inflammatory, but false assertions that found their way into that part of the grand jury presentment that addressed "Victim 2" (who has yet to be located or identified by prosecutors, let alone testify.) and has been said by the defense to be willing to testify that he was not assaulted. 

We now know the Presentment is a summary of allegations designed to justify and indictment that contains no quotes, no Q&A, no exculpatory evidence and no cross examination. The media never gave the public that description and they were too lazy or incompetent to realize it themselves.

The First False Assertion from the Presentment under the Victim 2 summary:

On pages six and seven of the grand jury presentment one reads the second-hand summary of testimony given to the grand jury by the Penn State "graduate assistant," subsequently identified to be Mike McQueary. According to this second-hand account, McQueary "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."

We have now seen Mike McQueary's Perjury Hearing Testimony that about 3 slapping sounds and the 2 second glances of Sandusky's back.

Based upon all of his published testimony, McQueary seems to have believed that the intercourse already had occurred, due to: (1) some "slapping sounds" he remembered hearing only in the hallway leading to the locker room and (2) the vision he had of a naked Sandusky standing closely behind a young boy, after McQueary entered the locker room and looked into a mirror seconds later. But that belief is much more tentative and speculative than the starkly certain eye-witness account of "anal intercourse" found in the grand jury presentment. Thus, somebody appears to have tampered with McQueary's testimony.

McQueary asserted the essence of this sworn testimony: "I did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling, so I can't sit here and say that I know 100 percent sure that there was intercourse, but that's what I said to myself and that's what I believed was happening." [Transcript of Preliminary Hearing, pp.13-14, p. 72] When he was asked if he saw "the look of pain on the boy's face," McQueary said, "no."[p. 97] Later, under cross-examination, McQueary was even more emphatic: "I have never used the word anal or rape in this - since day one." [Transcript, pp. 71-72] Thus, the reader must doubt the grand jury presentment every time it summarizes McQueary's testimony by asserting he saw something "anal." 

Use your common sense: Should we believe the more prosaic first-hand testimony that McQueary provided both in his hand-written statement and in his subsequent testimony under oath? Or should we believe the vivid and inflammatory allegation of "anal intercourse" found in the second-hand summary of his testimony?

The Second False Assertion:

After falsely asserting that McQueary "saw a naked boy...being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky," the author who summarized the grand jury presentment made a very misleading assertion when he wrote that: McQueary "went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen." [Grand Jury Report, p. 7]

 Obviously, by linking the false assertion that McQueary "saw a naked boy...being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky" to the assertion that McQueary "reported what he had seen" to Paterno, the author who summarized McQueary's testimony wants American readers to believe that the grand jurors believed that McQueary went to Paterno and told him that he witnessed Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a young boy. Perhaps, the jurors did. But, as we now know - given his hand- written statement in December 2010 and his subsequent actual testimony under oath on 16 December 2011 - McQueary has testified that he never witnessed insertion and never used the word anal.

In addition, McQueary testified under oath that he never used the term "sodomy" or "anal intercourse" when he notified Paterno about what he saw in the shower on 1 March 2002. [p. Preliminary Hearing Transcript, p. 25] (In fact, McQueary testified under oath that he could not recall using the words "sexual assault," when talking to Paterno, or even using the word "crime" to describe Sandusky's behavior) Actually, McQueary's preliminary hearing testimony substantiates Paterno's earlier assertion (in a news release) that McQueary "at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report." [Star-Ledger Wire Services, Nov. 8, 2011]

Mr. Uhler is just as outraged as I have been about the nature of these intentional lies and distortions of McQueary's stated observations. 

I must admit, when I first heard Paterno dispute what I took to be McQueary's grand jury testimony, I thought, "McQueary must be lying!" Thus, like many other thoughtless Americans at the time, it didn't occur to me that the author who summarized McQueary's grand jury testimony in the presentment might have crafted a misleading assertion. It's also worth mentioning at this point that McQueary did testify he was sure he used the term "fondling" when talking to Paterno on 2 March 2002. Thus, that testimony clearly substantiates Paterno's grand jury testimony, where he asserted that he told Athletic Director Tim Curley that McQueary "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." [Grand Jury Report, p. 7] It also answers the question posed by many disparagers of Paterno: "How was the sordid anal intercourse witnessed by McQueary passed up Penn State's chain of command by Paterno as mere "fondling?" Now you know. Anal intercourse was never mentioned, but Sandusky's rough positioning and fondling were!

Thus, the evidence strongly suggests that the grand jury presentment's second-hand summary of McQueary's testimony - which strongly and directly implied that McQueary told Paterno he witnessed anal intercourse -- is false. 

Again, simply ask yourself: Should we believe the prosaic first-hand, testimony by both McQueary and Paterno about "fondling," and their denials about any discussion of anal intercourse? Or should we believe the second-hand account of McQueary's testimony that misleads the reader into inferring that McQueary told Paterno about anal intercourse?

After you've reached the correct conclusion, think about all the misplaced outrage and abuse directed at Paterno by media jackals and the many jackasses they incited, who thoughtlessly swallowed that misleading inference and indignantly asked: "How could Paterno have done so little after being told about the rape of a child?" Message to planet earth: Paterno never was told about a rape! 

Now we move on to The Third False Assertion concerning the Perjury Charges against Curley and Schultz. The Attorney General wants the world to believe that McQueary told them of anal rape and this writer shoots that down with specifics.

On page seven of the grand jury presentment, the second-hand summary of McQueary's testimony states: McQueary "reported to Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building Showers." [p. 7] This assertion is closer to the truth, but also appears to be false, if only because McQueary subsequently testified on 16 December 2011 that he "never used the word anal or rape in this - since day one." Moreover, McQueary specifically testified that he did not use the words "sodomy" or "anal intercourse" when he reported what he saw to Curley and Schultz some ten days after talking to Paterno. [Transcript, p. 34.]

If you read the Grand Jury Testimony of Curley and Schultz contained in the Perjury Hearing testimony you find prosecutors persistently asking them if McQueary mentioned "anal sex" or "anal intercourse". Why do they use these questions since McQueary has stated numerous times that is not what he saw or said?  

Why? Because, McQueary never wavered in his impression that Sandusky had engaged in anal sex, even if he never used the word anal and never witnessed the act of insertion. Nevertheless, McQueary's testimony at the preliminary hearing buttresses the assertion attributed to Curley in the grand jury report: "When asked if the graduate assistant had reported 'anal sex between Jerry Sandusky and this child,' Curley testified, 'Absolutely not.'" [p. 8] Thus, both McQueary and Curley have testified under oath that they never discussed "anal sex," notwithstanding the second-hand summary in the grand jury presentment that has McQueary testifying precisely to "anal sex."

 This makes it sound almost like entrapment - or the PERJURY TRAP written about previously:

Similarly, since McQueary and Curley agree that they never discussed anal sex during their conversation, Gary Schultz - who was at that same meeting - could not have heard any discussion of "anal sex." But that did not stop one of the prosecutors from asking Schultz: "Would you agree with me that if it had been sodomy, that is, anal sex, that would clearly be inappropriate sexual conduct." Schultz answered, "No doubt," but he subsequently asserted that he didn't recall McQueary "telling us what he observed specifically." [Transcript, p. 226] Thus, Schultz had "no indication that a crime occurred."[p. 229]

Again, ask yourself: Should I believe the first-hand testimony of McQueary, Paterno, Curley and Schultz? Or should I believe the second-hand summary of McQueary's testimony found in the grand jury presentment? Thus, for a third time, it appears that the grand jury presentment has falsely summarized McQueary's testimony. Should we be surprised? No. Not if you consider another example where the summarization of McQueary's testimony in the grand jury presentment is contradicted by his subsequent testimony at the preliminary hearing.

Consider this: The grand jury report asserts that: As McQueary "entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds." [p. 6] Yet, when under cross-examination by Curley's lawyer, McQueary testified that he passed through two sets of doors, separated by a hallway, before entering the locker room that had the showers. He also testified to hearing the slapping sounds upon entering the first set of doors. Thus, he was in the hallway, not the locker room when he heard the slapping sounds. In fact, when Curley's lawyer asked him if he heard the slapping sounds after he entered the second set of doors, McQueary asserted that he couldn't recall. [pp. 53-54 of Transcript]

If we compare McQueary's first hand testimony under oath to second-hand summaries of that testimony, then the grand jury presentment appears to have gotten the facts wrong again!

Were these false summaries of McQueary's testimony in the grand jury presentment accidental, or were they part and parcel of a prosecutorial document designed to get convictions and to sway public opinion?  The very inflammatory use of "anal intercourse," when McQueary has made it a point to deny that he ever used the word "anal," convinces us the insertion of inflammatory false statements into the grand jury presentment was intentional. Now, I ask you: "Who doubts that it was the grand jury presentment's erroneous assertion the Mike McQueary "saw a naked boy...being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky" that not only sparked the outrage of countless Americans against Sandusky, but also against Penn State University and Joe Paterno, due to their supposed failure to act appropriately after McQueary told them about them rape? 

Here are a few examples of articles that took the Presentment as unassailable fact and used it to inflame the public against PSU and Paterno: In its 4 December 2011 editorial, the board of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote: 

"Instead of alerting authorities, university officials and staff participated in what has all the markings of a cover-up. Their dismissal of the reported rape of a boy in a locker-room shower as mere 'horsing around' was an outrageous example of a mind-set that the university must now eradicate..." 

Or consider the wicked bile spewed by Charles P. Pierce at grantland.com on Nov. 14, 2011:

"The crimes at Penn State are about the raping of children. That is all they are about...It no longer matters if there continues to be a football program at Penn State. It no longer even matters if there continues to be a university there at all."

Finally, consider the 11 November 2011 opinion of Howard Bryant at ESPN. 

"The university, responding to information provided by a graduate student in 2002 that he had witnessed anal sex in the shower on a boy about 10 years old, did nothing."

 (At least half a dozen writers at ESPN -- Ivan Maisle, Roderick MacLeish, Tim Keown, Gene Wojchiechowski, Jemele Hill and Bryant -- wrote asinine opinion pieces filled with misplaced outrage and indignation based upon the false assertions in the grand jury presentment. I wish I could say they gave sports reporters a bad name, but they're actually quite representative of the poorly educated slugs who stink up this so-called "profession."If you're looking for the bottom of the barrel, however, look for Dan Bernstein)

Such comments are very representative of the "intemperate sludge spewed by jackals" in the news media and lapped up by countless mindless jackasses in the court of public opinion.

And the depth of the indignation was accurately captured by a member of the righteously indignant in an email he sent to me about a month ago:

 "Millions of Americans across the nation have been expressing passionately, without restraint, their judgment of this affair because of and motivated by one dominant issue. That issue being the tragic image of a defenseless little boy being overwhelmed and sexually exploited by a real live monster! A little boy image abstracted horrifically in the minds of a caring society has captured the emotions, defined the unlimited outrage of folks emotional and outraged! It is the victim who is the single most important issue -- the single most important "event." Walter, those same millions are screaming out daily the questions you so eloquently offer: "...What and when did Paterno know!" But again, understand the masses outrage is motivated, prompted exclusively by "one" single event having to do with one single little boy."

The breadth and depth of the media outrage was sufficient to intimidate the cowards populating Penn State's Board of Trustees to unceremoniously fire Joe Paterno, without even hearing his side of the story. In my opinion the answer to this next poser is quite clear.THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LINDA KELLY is responsible whether she was the actual author or not because it came out of her office and prosecutors under her employ. 

Consequently, whoever summarized McQueary's testimony to falsely assert that he actually saw "anal intercourse" by Sandusky and reported what he actually saw to Paterno, Curley and Schultz needs to be identified, asked to explain himself or themselves, and, perhaps, pay a big price for the largely over-the-top outrage it sparked against Paterno and Penn State. But our concern for getting to the bottom of that problem shouldn't prevent us from insisting that an investigation be undertaken that would account for the false assertions in the grand jury presentment that proved so harmful to our football legend and alma mater. Let THAT investigation begin!

I hope we all can agree on that investigation because it is obviously the major reason Penn State has suffered such outrageous vilification for the past three months. I applaud Walter Uhler for his very complete and specific breakdown of the situation I have been attempting to illuminate from the beginning. Walter gets it and we need to try to get this and every other story explaining the situation out there and in the hands of every journalist we can. The real truth is now out there in limited supply in the media and we need to help it get more exposure.
IT IS TIME TO FIGHT BACK