Recap of State College, PA, Upon Further Review, 19 April 2013

Presentation shows the PA OAG successful in "anchoring" public opinion that PSU officials and, specifically the football program, enabled Sandusky to rape children on PSU's campus, but the evidence and trial verdicts prove otherwise.

by
Ray Blehar

From the large placards used at the press conference for the Sandusky indictment, to the grand jury presentment, Paterno's firing, and the Sandusky trial, state government officials successfully "anchored" a false narrative that PSU football enabled Sandusky to rape children on the PSU campus for over a decade.  This salacious narrative was used by the OAG to deflect attention away from its three year investigation of Sandusky which failed to identify a single victim.  My presentation of Friday, as it did in November 2011, destroyed that narrative by using the verdicts and testimony from the Sandusky trial.

"Anchoring Quotes"

“…he saw a naked boy…ten years old…being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky…”

 --Grand Jury Presentment 

“…remember that little old boy in the shower.”

--Governor Tom Corbett

“…the rapes of these boys occurred in the Lasch Building.” 

-- Louis Freeh

“…repeatedly concealed critical facts related to Sandusky’s child

abuse.”

 -- Louis Freeh

Locations of the Crimes

Based on Verdict Slips 2421 and 2422 of 2011, the locations of the crimes were:

15 counts specific to PSU property

  -- Victim 2 – four counts

  -- Victim 5 – three counts

  -- Victim 6 – three counts

  -- Victim 8 – five counts (possible error in admitting hearsay testimony)

30 counts not specific to PSU property (24 occurred off premises)

Of the counts on the PSU campus, the Victim 8 counts are highly questionable and may be overturned on appeal by the Superior Court.  However, there is no doubt that the majority of the crimes in this case were not committed on PSU's campus and that 12 of the fifteen counts are for Sandusky showering with minor youth.

Timeline of Crimes Reviewed

Because of the impact and importance of the timelines of the Sandusky crimes, I repeated the information noting that the police failed to identify any of the victims.

•Victim 7 - Abused 1997 in various locations

•Victim 10 – Abused 1997-1999 in various locations.

•Victim 4 - Abused 1998-2000 in various locations.

•Victim 6 - Single shower incident 1998 at PSU.

•Victim 5 - Single shower incident 1998 at PSU.

•Victim 3 - Abused 2000 at Sandusky home and other locations.

•Victim 8 - Abused PSU shower 2000.

•Victim 2 – Abused PSU shower 2001 - witnessed by McQueary – reported by PSU officials, who 

reported it to Second Mile.

                            Apparent Stop of Abuse for 3 years

•Aaron Fisher – Abused 2005-2008 at Sandusky’s home & CMHS.

•Victim 9 – Abused 2006-2009 at Sandusky’s home

The Sandusky Investigation

To set the stage for the preview of my upcoming Report 3 on the Sandusky investigation and prosecution (expected to be released in May), I provided the following quotes:

“Anyone who sat through that trial knows it was a thorough

investigation.  I don’t care what it looks like.  I know because I was

there.  There was no holding back.”

  --OAG Supervisory Agent,

   Randy Feathers

“When you’re not getting breaks, it doesn’t mean you’re not working.”

  --OAG Supervisory Agent,

   Randy Feathers

“It was kept very secretive, of course, and people wanted to maintain

 that secret.”

              -- Agent Anthony Sassano

Mini-Timeline of Investigation

The timeline in Report 3 is four pages long and includes nearly all the dates for police initial interviews with the victims, their grand jury testimony, and other dates.  The significant points on this mini-timeline are that the cops were telling Fisher about other victims from the outset, that the OAG learned of the 1998 investigation in June 2009, and that it took the OAG nineteen months to get the 1998 police report from PSU.   Who was "holding back" and who was "keeping secrets?"

Dec  2008 -  Troopers Cavanaugh and Akers tell Victim 1 he is not  alone ~ Sandusky

                      had other victims (Trial testimony, June 12, 2012, page 77)

Feb 2009  -   Trooper Lear replaced Cavanaugh and Akers

April 2009 -  Centre County DA transfers case to OAG

May 2009 -    31st Statewide Investigating Grand Jury begins

June 2009 – Deputy AG Eschbach informed Mike Gillum that OAG was aware of 1998

                      Sandusky investigation (Silent No More, page 120)

June 2009 -  Rossman replaced Lear/told Fisher about other victims (Trial testimony, June 12,   

                            2012, page 77)

Nov  2010 -   Anonymous Tip Regarding 2001 incident

Dec 2010  -   Interview with Mother of Victim 6, who identifies five victims

Jan 2011  -   State Police obtain University Park Police Report of 1998 Sandusky

                     Investigation (19 months after learning about 1998)

Identifying the Victims

As reported previously, most of the victims were identified by the mother of Victim 6 (five victims), two others (Fisher & Victim 10) reported themselves, and one more was called in by a school official (Victim 9). Victims 2 and 8 remain unidentified.

Victim 3 - Agent Sassano testified about the leads that helped investigators find the victims.  Sassano stated that Victim 3, who was contacted in July 2011, was found through talking to another potential victim.  However, he was one of those identified by the mother of Victim 6 in December 2010.  He had several traffic dockets in the magisterial system, so he should have been found rather quickly if the police ran a records check.  Instead, it took them seven months to "find" him.

Victim 7  - Agent Sassano testified that Victim 7 was found on a 1995 camper list found after a warrant of Sandusky's office was executed on April 12, 2011.  His name was marked with an asterisk.  Sassano must be the unluckiest investigator, because had he been in Strawberry Square on April 11, 2011 - he could have found Victim 7 testifying at the grand jury!  Victim 7 was interviewed by police in February 2011.

Victim 10 - Agent Sassano testifed that Victim 10's name was marked with an asterisk on a 1998 camper list found in Sandusky's office in April.  Victim 10 had a criminal docket from 2007 in the magisterial system and had served a 23 month sentence in SCI-Albion for robbery - released in July 2009.   Victim 10 called the hotline in November 2011 after he heard the news of the Sandusky indictment.   The police didn't find him.

Victim 9 - Agent Sassano testified that Victim 10's name was on a TSM participant list found in Sandusky's home when the executed the warrant in June 2011.  His name was marked with a dash, his phone number was listed, and his mother's name was also listed.  His mother had a 2008 criminal docket in the system that contained her address.   Despite all of this information,the police did not find this victim.  His assistant principal called his name into the police after the grand jury presentment was released.

And despite the obvious facts that Victims 9 and 10 came forward after the presentment, no one in the media - including the CDT - questioned Sassano's story about finding these "leads."  Press reports focused- in part- on Sassano's statements that PSU was slow in getting them information about the case.

The inconsistent statements of Sassano and others involved in the investigation will be detailed in my May report.

The Ages of the Victims and Crime Locations

In the Commonwealth's opening statement, Prosecutor McGettigan described the victims as "little children" who were "weak" and "unaware of the nature of the contact" with Sandusky. He also put the onus on PSU as the only organization who could have done something to stop Sandusky.  Again, this was an "anchoring" strategy for the jury and the press - and it worked.

McGettigan followed that up by first calling Victim 4, who related that practically all of the abuse happened to him as a "little kid" (for the record he was 13-16) and it happened in PSU facilities and hotels where the team stayed.  The evidence exhibits were dominated by PSU football related photographs.  It was also notable that McGettigan coached Victim 4 into saying he was a "little above bellybutton height" on Sandusky -- as a 13 year old.   Photographic evidence revealed that he was 5' 6" tall as a 15 year old, meaning he would have had to have grown 18" in two years.

McGettigan repeated this pattern of asking about the size of the victims throughout the trial.

The chart below is an analysis of the ages of the victims and locations of the crimes.  It revealed that the most serious crimes were committed against teenagers and those crimes were committed mostly off PSU's campus. (K = knew Sandusky, G = grooming, T = touching, OS = oral sex, and R = anal rape).

As the chart shows, the incidents of anal rape occurred at Sandusky's home, yet after the trial, the media reported and the public believed that Sandusky was raping little children on PSU's campus.

Note that Victim 10 is an "outlier," meaning that he was the only victim to testify to serious abuse crimes without any previous or later contact with Sandusky.  Dottie Sandusky testified she had never known Victim 10. (Note: Victim 6 continued contact with Sandusky into 2011).

However, the trial verdicts and media reports are evidence that the OAG's "anchoring" strategy was very effective.  And again, Report 3 will further dissect McGettigan's trial tactics.

More Analysis of the Victim 8/Janitor Incident

While many consider the Victim 8 incident to be a minor issue, I believe it is the second most important issue in this case.   Had the judge ruled that the hearsay testimony of Petrosky was inadmissable, there would have been no grounds to state PSU had a culture problem from the top (Spanier) to the bottom (the janitors).

Had the media analyzed this incident with a critical eye, they would have realized that the locations, timeframe, and circumstances of the incident were so inconsistent that getting a conviction on the testimony of Petrosky was close to a miracle.

The Locations
Between the OAG and the Freeh Report, the location of this crime was three different places.

  

Lasch – Asst Coaches Locker Room– Lasch Building (Grand Jury)

East Area Locker Building – Freeh Report, page 63

Lasch – Asst Coaches Locker Room – Freeh Report, page 65

Lasch – Staff Locker Room – Trial testimony of Petrosky

The OAG subpoeanaed the names of the janitors who worked in the East Area Locker Room (EALR).  The only logical explanation for this is because the grand jury testimony indicated that there was an obstruction or curtain that would block the bodies and is the Assistant Coaches shower in the EALR.  Victim 4 testified to that fact.

As I noted in my Pittsburgh presentation, the curtain presented a "problem" for the prosecution's case because if Petrosky could not see the bodies, then Calhoun would also be unable to see the bodies, thus could not have witnessed Sandusky performing oral sex on the victim.

Solution:  Tell a different story differently at trial  -- and that's what happened. McGettigan told Judge Cleland that the janitors (plural) now remembered the incident differently, but that the changes were not significant.  .

Time Frames of the Crime
The Commonwealth's and Petrosky's time frames for the Victim 8 crimes follow:

Fall 2000 (Grand Jury)

Thursday or Friday night of an away football game.

Between November 20 and 27, 2000 (Comm. Bill of Particulars, May 2012)

Away game at Ohio State (Petrosky Trial Testimony)

Based on Petrosky's trial testimony none of the dates make sense.  While child victims are granted considerable latitude in determining the date of their victimization, adult witnesses are supposed to get it right (especially when there is more than one witness).

The 2000 Season Ended on November 18.

The last game played at HOME on the 18th.

Thanksgiving fell on the Thursday between Nov 20 - 27, 2000.

Team finished 5-7 – no bowl game practices.

Ohio State game was played on September 23rd.

At the trial, the defense failed to raise the arguments about the dates being wrong, although they did raise it at the appeal.

Circumstances of the Crime
Despite McGettigan's admission that the changes in the testimony were insignificant, the changes were quite significant in almost every respect -- except the details of the crime itself.

Reporting of the Crime by the CDT and Freeh
The Freeh Report and the Centre Daily Times reported the trial testimony in line with the grand jury version and not the actual trial testimony of Petrosky.  The Freeh Report made reference to a July 2, 2012 interview (unamed) as its source of the trial testimony.  I jokingly opined that Freeh must have interviewed the reporter from the CDT.   The accounts are below.

First, both reports incorrectly stated that something was blocking the upper bodies.  Next, they stated that Calhoun approached Petrosky, which is opposite of the trial version of Petrosky entering the locker room and encountering Calhoun.   Petrosky made no references at trial to Calhoun's military service.  Freeh also incorrectly stated that multiple witnesses testified at trial.

However, one of the most critical inconsistencies of Petrosky's testimony was his statement that he called police after reading about the graduate assistant incident in the CDT.   Petrosky called the police in March 2011, long before the appearance of the McQueary story in the CDT on November 8, 2011.

Hearsay Ruling
I didn't cover this at the event, but it could be quite significant in its bearing on the NCAA sanctions.

Cleland allowed the hearsay testimony, in part, because two janitors would be called to testify, thus providing more than one account of the hearsay making it admissible under Commonwealth v. Barnes.  Cleland also ruled that "course of conduct" could be used to lay foundation for admissible hearsay. In other words, Sandusky had allegedly molested boys in the showers, so that laid the foundation as well.

The defense argued that Sandusky should first have to be proven guilty for crimes in the showers to establish the foundation.

The Commonwealth argued the hearsay admission should stand, in part, because Petrosky's testimony was buttressed by the testimony of Jay Witherite -- however, Witherite never testified and Judge Cleland apparently overlooked this fact in his appeal ruling.

Cleland's appeal ruling stated he may have erred on the admission of the hearsay and that superior court would decide it, but for the time being it is a "harmless error" because Sandusky was sentenced concurrently for the crimes.  However, this conviction cost PSU $60M in fines, NCAA probation, and its reputation.   It is not "harmless" by any stretch of the imagination.

This circus regarding the Victim 8 trial testimony, particularly the change of crime scene and the failure to testify by Witherite, needs to be fully investigated by the Special Prosecutor.

Breaking the Anchor Chain

Much like in the Duke case, incontrovertible evidence must surface that shows that the current narrative of the Sandusky Scandal is indeed false.

Overturning the janitor incident case could be some of that evidence if the Superior Court so rules.  Kane's investigation could also negate the janitor incident, which could provide solid ground to approach the NCAA because the NCAA sanctions hinge largely in part on that case.  

The second part of breaking the anchor chain is that a new narrative must replace the existing one.  Again, the Kane investigation could indeed provide the new narrative and the new Attorney General stated that "no stone will be left unturned."

Those stones are The Second Mile and the PSU Board of Trustees (and I have reports planned for both groups).



Full presentation will be posted in the future at SanduskyReports.com and/or http://emf.intherough.net/pennstate.htm

Upon Further Review, This Friday, April 19 at Days Inn, State College

WHAT: Debunk common myths and reveal unreported truths of the Jerry Sandusky Scandal.  Dl


WHERE: Days Inn

240 South Pugh Street

State College, PA 16801



WHEN: Friday, April 19, 2013 

3:00pm to 5:30pm




WHO: Franco Harris, Former Penn State and Pittsburgh Steeler football player

Anthony Lubrano, Penn State University Trustee

Rob Tribeck, Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship Legal Counsel

Ray Blehar, Analyst and Investigator

Eileen Morgan, Penn State University Alumnus, Technology and Research Analyst

John Ziegler, Documentary Filmmaker

Chip Minemyer, Executive Editor, Centre Daily Times



I will be previewing my upcoming report of the Jerry Sandusky investigation.


Hope to see you there.

PSU's Legal Dilemma in the Victim 6 Case

PSU's Board of Trustees finds itself between a rock and a hard place in its defense of Victim 6's lawsuit

By
Ray Blehar

When I first heard that Victim 6 was suing Penn State, I believed it was a lost cause.  Victim 6's (or more accurately, his mother's) claims of sexual abuse in 1998 were investigated by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) with no finding of sexual abuse.  Moreover, the Sandusky trial found that the defendant was not guilty of indecent assault in the Victim 6 case, but was found guilty of lesser grooming type crimes.

The recent ruling by Judge Anita Brody was a bit of a head scratcher as well.   The judge ruled the trial should proceed, despite PSU's argument that it should wait until the trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were concluded (to determine if the men were guilty of child endangerment and other crimes).   But as we've learned in the Sandusky case, the Pennsylvania judicial system works in mysterious ways.  A complex child sex abuse case speeds through the system, while a case of a summary offense and perjury is continuously put on hold.

Despite my disagreement with the judge's ruling in this case, the lawsuit by Howard Janet is a brilliant legal  move.

The PSU BOT has already given responsibility to the Subcommittee on Legal to provide settlements to Sandusky's victims.   In that resolution, PSU admitted they were "liable for injuries suffered by such persons relating to the actions of Gerald Sandusky."

Rather than settle for the chump change that PSU is willing to pay all comers with a halfway legitimate complaint, Howard Janet is going for the brass ring -- and he can demand the moon and get it.  Why?  Just take a look at his witness list....

First witness for the plaintiff: Kenneth Frazier

Kenneth Frazier, at the last BOT meeting in Hershey, stated that PSU was responsible for the crimes that occurred on the PSU campus.  As for 1998, Frazier stated:  "“The fact of the matter is, those documents say what they say, and no amount of hand-waving will ever change what those documents say.”

In effect, Frazier's support of the Freeh Report's findings that Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz should have known about Sandusky's behavior in 1998 and acted more earnestly strongly supports the case of Victim 6.   Frazier also pointed to the handwritten note of Gary Schultz as more evidence that PSU knew about the incident, as he emphasized that the note said "had to be genital contact."

Second witness for the plaintiff: Louis Freeh

Louis Freeh's team authored the report that stated PSU officials should have known about Sandusky's behavior in 1998 and because of their knowledge, should have changed Sandusky's retirement package and banned Sandusky from the facilities.  Freeh's team made the "independent discovery" of the e-mail evidence that demonstrated that PSU officials were fully aware of the 1998 investigation and concealed the information from the PSU BOT.  Freeh also noted that the PSU BOT did not execute proper oversight of senior officials and maintain an environment of accountability at PSU.

Third witness for the plaintiff:  Keith Eckel

Keith Eckel's testimony will be short and to the point.  He'll be asked to stand by his statement:  "The decision of the trustees was not based on the legality. It was based on what we believed was right for the university at that moment and moving forward."   As his statement applied to the firing of coach Paterno, shouldn't it also hold true for compensating Victim 6?

Penn State's Defense Dilemma

Penn State hoped to kick the can down the road - into 2014 - and the conclusion of the Spanier, Curley, and Schultz trials to avoid having to make a defense that would run counter to its current position of standing behind the Freeh Report that "reasonably concluded" that PSU was responsible for letting Sandusky abuse children for over a decade.   

Moreover, PSU would likely (grudgingly) point out the DPW and CYS had cleared Sandusky in 1998 and that the University had no reason to believe that Sandusky was abusing children.

The University likely would point out that its own police department investigated the case and found there was nothing there.  And, it would point out that the Centre County District Attorney also decided there was no abuse in the case.

PSU does not want to have to defend itself in this case - no way, no how.

Go for it, Howard.  

We'll get the popcorn ready.

1998 Revisited and Other Ponderings

by Wendy Silverwood

A compilation of comments and questions from across the “boards”

The “PSU as villain” script had to be started for a specific reason. It was never supported by the facts, especially with respect to the 1998 incident, in which Centre County Children and Youth Services along with an investigator from PaDPW were involved. Curiously we find Nils Frederickson, PA OAG Acting Director of Communications, banging out the error filled script for the 1998 investigation in his Nov. 5, 2011 press release. Once the decision was made by the PA Office of Attorney General to turn this into PSU as the “bad guy”, everything else simply dropped off the radar.

It was no longer about Sandusky and his horrendous crimes, it was now about a grand PSU “conspiracy” that the Attorney General decided must have happened to “cover up” Sandusky’s activities. Let’s cut across the media roar, turn down the volume and really listen to what actually went on.  

Fundamentally this “cover up” didn’t exist 17 months ago and it still doesn’t exist today.

Perhaps someone wanted or needed or even insisted this come out of the gate as a giant Penn State “cover-up”. It could possibly be viewed as being devised by an individual or a group, e.g. the Surmas, with the goal of bringing PSU to its knees as an institution, settling old scores, wresting control and/or seeing petty vendettas through it.

Sandusky’s own loathsome conduct, especially given his status as an agent of the county and an executive director of a state licensed children’s charity became secondary. So instead of trying a case against a preferential child sexual offender to remedy criminal acts, it’s about bringing down PSU for possible political reasons.

We have $42 million and counting for “public relations” and crisis management, a $60 million hammering by the NCAA, an $8 million sham “investigation”, a banner-toting plane flying over campus for 3 days and enough high-priced consultants, PR hacks, compliance experts and second lawyers for the first lawyers that the issue is not Sandusky who culled his victims from a state licensed entity, but PSU and its “culture problems”. 

This all makes zero sense.  Problem is, nothing’s made sense.

The McQueary testimony makes no sense. The Freeh Report makes no sense. The NCAA sanctions make no sense. The “moral responsibility” statement by Noonan makes no sense. Freeh’s grandstanding press conference makes no sense. None of the facts line up for a “Conspiracy of Silence” to “protect the football program”.  

Looking at this more clearly and focusing on everything from the timeline of the investigation to Seasock’s bizarre conclusions argues that somebody was in a big hurry to get the 1998 investigation over with. 

That in and of itself should give us all cause for alarm.

The use of Counselor John Seasock in 1998 to contradict Dr. Chamber’s findings is puzzling. Seasock knows who involved him, and other than possibly of Sandusky, he is the only one who does. So when he doesn’t make an appearance for the Defense despite the Defense have a written, signed contemporaneous “report” known to have been provided to the Centre County DA, it raises a question. Is there a possibility that there is an individual or individuals in Centre County who has/have the most to lose if it would be publicly revealed who set up the Seasock evaluation and has/have managed somehow to keep it quiet?

Only someone at the county level of government would have had the familiarity with Seasock’s brand of “compliance”, familiarity with Ray Gricar, familiarity with Sandusky and familiarity with The Second Mile.

What is troubling is that whoever was responsible for recruiting and hiring John Seasock to evaluate the victim has received ZERO scrutiny. 

Another troubling aspect.

Why did the PA OAG direct Freeh to stay away from University Park Police Chief Tom Harmon? He was the person most directly at the center of the 1998 investigation. Freeh was tasked with looking into exactly what “went wrong” at PSU and he can’t speak to the one person at the center of everything?  A long-term former head of a large police department cannot be interviewed in an “independent” investigation? 

Does not make sense.

The person who put Freeh in place did so knowing that he would reach the “right”
result, and that Freeh would abide by the Attorney General’s rules and not put anyone in an awkward position by attempting to talk to people with actual knowledge of what they were being asked. So why did Freeh operate in tandem with the AG’s office?

Even Sara Ganim’s headlines’ promoted the prevailing narrative yet demanded corrections when new information surfaced. Those corrections, however, never materialized. 

More questions.

Why is Investigator Jerry Lauro of PaDPW getting a free pass? Clearly CYS and PA DPW are at fault for the 1998 situation. Perhaps because they had such a cushy relationship with The Second Mile they cannot or will not ever admit to their responsibility. Why wasn’t The Second Mile immediately turned upside down by the State? The PA OAG has oversight of non-profits in the Commonwealth; visiting The Second Mile offices did not require a subpoena and could have swiftly been dealt with.  Why hasn’t CYS & DPW been a focal point for the indignation about Sandusky? 

Where is the outrage at these agencies and why are no officials taken to task?

Taking on a hugely popular and politically connected entity like The Second Mile or those politicos that create for-profit juvenile prisons and the ensuing “Kids For Cash” scandal has not particularly been PA DPW’s strong suit. 

What does this tell us about the very systems we have in place to protect our kids?

 

We can only hope that Kathleen Kane’s office goes back to 1998 – and interviews the CYS head; the CYS intermediary; the DPW “supervisor”, who supposedly issued the interview order; Jerry Lauro; Victim Number 6's mom; Victim Number 6, to the extent he has any independent memory of the “incident”; retired Detective Schreffler; Officer Ralston; retired PSU Chief Tom Harmon; John Seasock and Dr. Chambers. 

And then begin to carefully and clearly connect the dots…

Eileen Morgan: To Tell The Truth. Would the Real Mark Emmert Please Stand Up?

by Eileen Morgan

NCAA vs. PSU

In his letter¹ on November 17, 2011 to the Penn State Board of Trustees, NCAA President Mark Emmert wrote, “I am writing to notify you that the NCAA will examine Penn State’s exercise of institutional control over its intercollegiate athletics program, as well as the actions, and inactions, of relevant responsible personnel.  I also have notified the NCAA Division I Board of Directors of the NCAA approach.  We recognize that there are ongoing federal and state investigations and the NCAA does not intend to interfere with those probes.  Moreover, we respect that under our criminal justice system there is a defined process to ascertain the facts, as well as determine criminal guilt or innocence.  We will utilize any information gained from the criminal justice process in our review….”

Although Penn State did not violate any NCAA rules, it is clear that in November 2011, the NCAA planned to ‘examine’ for itself if Penn State (and relevant personnel) lacked ‘institutional control.’  It is also very clear that Emmert was initially going to allow due process to run its course and defer NCAA action until the criminal justice system (via the Tim Curley and Gary Schultz trials) determined criminal guilt or innocence.  So what happened to the NCAA’s probe and waiting for due process?  The very next day on November 18, 2011, the Penn State Board of Trustees signed Freeh’s engagement letter², authorizing Freeh and his team to investigate the matter.  Apparently, within one day, Emmert changed his mind and decided to hold off on an NCAA investigation until after Freeh disclosed his findings.    

Shortly after the release of the Freeh report, the NCAA Board gave Emmert the power to take corrective and punitive action relative to Penn State, forgoing the NCAA's normal investigative protocol.  On July 22, 2012, the NCAA announced that it would impose "corrective and punitive" sanctions against both the Penn State football program and the institution as a whole the next morning.  Additionally, the NCAA said that since Penn State had commissioned the Freeh report and accepted its findings, further proceedings would be redundant.  Emmert himself said that Freeh's investigation was far more exhaustive than any that would have been mounted by the NCAA.³  But, Emmert could not have known back in November 2011 that Freeh’s investigation would turn out to be ‘exhaustive.’  So why did the NCAA forgo their own probe in 2011?  Was there a deal between PSU and Emmert to use Freeh’s findings from the beginning?  And more importantly, why did Emmert renege on his promise ‘to utilize any information gained from the criminal justice process’ in his review before handing down unprecedented sanctions?  Certainly, the criminal justice system’s examination in the Curley and Schultz trials will be far more exhaustive and its determination of criminality or innocence will be legally binding.
¹ http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf
² http://www.scribd.com/doc/129799160/Freeh-Engagement-Letter
³ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2012-07-23/ncaa-penn-state-punishment-sanctions/56427630/1

It is interesting to note that questions 2-4 on page 3 of Emmert’s letter deal with the Grand Jury Presentment.  The Presentment listed allegations against Sandusky, as well as Curley and Schultz.  The statements in the Presentment were only allegations waiting to be proven through the justice system.  Therefore, how can Emmert expect PSU to answer questions regarding issues identified in the Presentment when those issues are only allegations and have yet to be verified in a court of law?

In addition, Emmert’s stretch of the bylaws’ context to encompass the Sandusky issues is unimpressive.  His particular attempt of equating ‘young people’ within the NCAA framework to that of children is overreaching to say the least.  The context of ‘young people’ cited in Bylaw 19.01.2 clearly means collegiate student-athletes.  However, on page 3, he discussed re-examining “behaviors that lift up ‘young people’ rather than making them victims.”   Clearly, no student-athlete at Penn State was a victim and this comparison was a feeble attempt to validate the NCAA’s jurisdiction in this matter.

Sanctions: Mark Emmert vs. Rodney Erickson

What is the truth regarding the Penn State sanctions and the threat of the death penalty?  Emmert maintains there was no such threat.  This 7/24/12 ESPN video⁴ (at the 3:00 mark), affirms that Mark Emmert denied that PSU was threatened with the death penalty, “No, it wasn’t that at all.”  In addition, the Sun Sentinel article ⁵ reveals that Ameen Najjar, former NCAA enforcement director (who worked under Emmert up until May 2012), addressed the Penn State sanctions in an Aug. 7, 2012 email to Nevin Shapiro:  "The Penn State deal is a travesty," he wrote. "The NCAA did not impose anything. Penn State agreed to and self-imposed the penalties, waved all due process and waived any right to appeal.  The NCAA had/has NO authority to impose any penalties in that situation and PSU's president sold the school down the river!"

However, according to a story written⁶ by Don Van Natta Jr., Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years and that Emmert told Erickson in a phone conversation on July 17 that a majority of the NCAA's leadership wanted to levy the four-year penalty.
Gene Marsh, a former chairman of the NCAA’s infractions committee who defended former Ohio State coach Jim Tressel, had been hired by Penn State to help negotiate sanctions in the wake of the scandal. According to Van Natta, Marsh received a call in July from Donald Remy, the NCAA’s general counsel. Remy told Marsh that Penn State was facing a death penalty for multiple seasons.
Erickson said, “if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the University could have faced a multiyear death penalty, as well as ‘other sanctions,’ including a financial penalty far greater than $60 million.”

⁴ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWIOqcvQZI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
⁵ http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/um-hurricanes/fl-nevin-shaprio-miami-ncaa-0403-20130403,0,3454721.story
⁶ http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

At the 3:30 mark of the ESPN video, Emmert admits the death penalty was ‘unequivocally on the table’ and an ‘active option.’  He also states that the Board’s behavior and actions (signing the Consent Decree) were ‘clearly considerations in not applying the death penalty’ and he says had Penn State not been as ‘forthright, open and decisive’ he does not ‘know what the outcome would have been’ but suspects ‘it would have been significantly worse.’  This would at least suggest there was an unspoken threat of a four year death penalty from Emmert.

I find it interesting to note that Erickson said, “if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the University could have faced a multiyear death penalty….” Perhaps we have been focusing on the wrong threat.  The threat has always been centered on the death penalty.  Maybe the threat of a ‘formal investigation’ gave Erickson pause.  Imagine if a formal NCAA investigation would have begun, taking into consideration the outcome of the criminal justice process as Emmert promised in November 2011.  This would have exposed the Freeh report for its fraudulent and baseless conclusions and the Board of Trustees would no longer be able to justify their rush to judgment in terminating Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier.  In all likelihood, Penn State would have been absolved of Sandusky’s crimes and able to avoid sanctions altogether.  Why didn’t Erickson buy time for the football program and allow the NCAA to formally investigate?  Did Erickson sign the Consent Decree to avoid an authentic investigation that would make the Freeh report vulnerable to review which would then confirm that the Board’s November 2011 actions were unjust?  Whether the death penalty was real or fabricated, is Erickson hiding behind it to justify the acceptance of the Consent Decree?

At about the 4:00 mark of the video, Emmert confirms the NCAA had two options: to investigate or hand down the Consent Decree.  He says a traditional investigation would ‘consume’ much time and energy with an ‘UNKNOWN OUTCOME’ so they opted for the Consent Decree.  Don’t all investigations begin with unknown outcomes?  Isn’t that the very purpose of a probe: to determine the facts?

Oh wait, I stand corrected.  If you are the Penn State Board of Trustees you can apparently pay for an investigation and determine your OWN outcome⁷.  Emmert did not want to launch his own investigation to determine the truth; he wanted to act immediately, saving precious time and money, and appease the masses, so he took the ‘known’ outcome authored by Louis Freeh and the PSU Task Force.  Again I ask, what happened to Emmert’s initial stance to wait for the “criminal justice system to ascertain the facts, as well as determine criminal guilt or innocence?”

At a closer look, the Consent Decree seems to satisfy both parties.  Emmert got to flex his NCAA muscles to a world-wide audience and Erickson avoided a formal investigation that would have exposed the Freeh report.  By the way, if Erickson was threatened, why hasn’t he and the Board fought the sanctions since they were negotiated under duress?  It appears he wants to keep the sanctions status quo to avoid an investigation yet at the same time cry foul at Emmert’s threat. 

⁷ http://emf.intherough.net/pennstate5.htm

Emmert vs. Emmert

In this 4/3/13 article in USA Today ⁸, Emmert is accused of evading a variety of scandals that took place on his watch, including LSU having systemic academic fraud in its football program.

Emmert disputes that.

"The facts speak for themselves," Emmert said. "We went from an athletic program that was underperforming dramatically in the classroom to one that was performing well."

NOW HERE ARE THE FACTS (shared with me by an anonymous source):

The academic fraud was uncovered in 2001-02—and LSU submitted a report in 2004--2 years later. Penn State submitted the Freeh Report just months after the story broke.

These are the graduation rates for the Football Student-Athletes at LSU under Chancellor Mark Emmert, and corresponding rates for PSU. (Source: The Federal Graduation Rates from the NCAA)

Recruiting Class Year              LSU                                     Penn State

1999                                        37%                                         76%

2000                                        38%                                         72%

2001                                        37%                                         75%
Cheating exposed at LSU

"The facts speak for themselves," Emmert said. "We went from an athletic program that was underperforming dramatically in the classroom to one that was performing well."

2002                                        42%                                         80%

2003                                        42%                                         77%

2004                                        48%                                         80%

Apparently Mark Emmert, the head of the NCAA, believes graduating less than HALF of his football student-athletes can be defined as “performing well.”

Well, here is a fact that definitely speaks for itself.  Emmert’s comment reveals nothing but hypocrisy.  The NCAA President wants us to believe that under his supervision, a 48% graduation rate exemplifies a football program that is “performing well”, however, the Penn State football program that has consistently graduated 75-80% of its student-athletes constitutes a “Football Culture Problem.”

Mark Emmert speaks out of both sides of his mouth.  He says he will utilize information gained from the criminal justice process in his review, and then denies PSU due process.  He says he did not threaten PSU with the death penalty, but admits a four year death penalty was on the table as a viable option.  He says PSU has a ‘Football Culture Problem’ yet says LSU’s graduation rate of about 50% LESS than PSU is defined as ‘performing well.’  

Would the real Mark Emmert, please stand up?

⁸http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/04/02/ncaa-president-emmert-previous-cases-uconn-lsu/2047607/

BOT Election: Get out the vote

by
Dave Ketchen

Disgruntled Penn State supporters all agree that incumbents Paul Suhey and Stephanie Deviney must be defeated.  Meanwhile, only a tiny percentage of alums (about 6%) vote in the  BOT elections.  

This presents a huge opportunity. The more new reform‐ minded voters we recruit, the less chance the incumbents  have of keeping their board seats.    Therefore, concerned alumni are asking that you recruit  as voters at least 5 of your family, friends, and associates  who do not normally vote.  

Here is a template email that you could use or adapt:  

“You’ve seen the news stories. Penn State is in serious trouble. The current Board  of Trustees has done a terrible job of dealing with the Sandusky Scandal. Our  university needs 5 minutes of your time to help turn the situation around.    Please request a ballot to vote in the upcoming election of 3 trustees.

To obtain a  ballot, simply send an email to BOT@psu.edu that lists your full name (including  maiden name if you have one), your year of graduation (or last attendance), your  college and major, and your current home mailing address.

You will then receive  an electronic ballot via email on April 10.

Alumni without Internet access can  obtain a paper ballot by calling (814) 865‐2521.  

If you want to learn more about the candidates, plenty of information is available  at http://www.psu.edu/trustees/vote/2013%20Alumni%20Candidates/index.html

I have been following the election closely and will share my preferred candidates  with you if you wish.     Please do NOT vote for the incumbents, Paul Suhey and Stephanie Deviney.

Also,  please consider forwarding this message to Penn Staters within your circle of  family and friends

560,658 Alumni are far less when it comes to BOT voting and making donations

500,000 and 600,000 are numbers that are oft repeated when speaking of PSU alumni, however, when it comes to voting for the BOT and making donations to PSU the numbers are far, far less.

By 
Ray Blehar

With the vote for new alumni trustees upon us, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how many PSU alumni do what matters most:  vote and donate money.

Voting

PS4RS provided this graphic on how many alumni voted in the last election, which stated 37,563 (about 6% of alumni).  The total votes were 101,308 or 2.7 votes per ballot.  The fact that only 6% of alumni vote in trustee elections is astonishing, but I am quite certain we will see a dramatic increase this spring.

Jay Paterno wrote in statecollege.com that PSU alumni should be wary of voting irregularities in this years election and recommended observers.  Bob Horst noted that the BOT routinely rigged the mechanical and engineering trustee elections in years past.

It may be prudent for PS4RS to hold their own "mock" election to ensure that their membership vote is not undercounted.  

My goodness, PSU has become a third world Banana Republic, where we have to be concerned about rigged elections.  Of course, we will all be labeled as dissidents in the next issue of The Collegian....so, have some North Korea with those bananas.

Donations

The 2011-2012 PSU President's Report on Philanthropy and Endowments (page 29) revealed that only 75,593 alumni donated to PSU (13.5%).  That is an eye opening number.  The inverse shows that 480,065 do not donate to Dear Old State.  I suspect the percentage will be lower in 2012-2013 given what has transpired over the last year.  I anxiously await the next report to find out.

Page 30 reveals that almost one quarter of the annual giving is to PSU Athletics ($51.4M).  However, the Nittany Lion Club Annual Report for 2011 indicated that over $81M was raised, including endowments.  The total number of donors to the NLC was 23,374, which includes students and non-alums.

Another interesting point is that donations to THON are included in the PSU donation total, thus alumni who contribute to THON are among the 75,593.  Given that THON is a special philanthropy that draws in a considerable number of small donors, one can surmise that the number of alumni donors to THON is quite large.  What is unknown (more research needed) is just how many alums donate to THON and nothing else.

Conclusion

The bottom line is for an alumni base the size of PSU's, it is surprising how few donate and vote.  In other words, the vast majority of alumni leave PSU and really don't take an active interest in the University.  PS4RS boasts a membership of around 15,000 -- a very powerful voting/donation block if it can be harnessed in the BOT election and in directing (or dare I say, withholding) donations.

Mad Libs: Who was responsible for Sandusky's crimes

By
Wendy Sliverwood

Taken from page 5 of the Introduction of the Freeh Report:

“The evidence shows that ________________ also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower.  Again, ___________showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that ________________was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his ___________________for almost _______ years, and had an office just steps away from ___________.  At the very least, ___________ could have alerted the entire ______________ staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the ______________.  _________________also failed to alert the _________________about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky.  ________________ even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct.

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity. “

…If we replace “Paterno” with other key individuals we can make some reasonable conclusions…

Alycia Chambers – State College Psychologist

The evidence shows that Ms. Chambers’ colleagues were made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an agent of the County by virtue of his adoptive & foster parent status, and had an office in a childrens’ charity just minutes away from Ms. Chambers office.  At the very least, Ms. Chambers could have alerted the entire Centre County CYS staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into his home. Ms Chambers and her colleagues also failed to alert The Second Mile Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Jack Raykovitz – CEO The Second Mile

The evidence shows that Jack Raykovitz was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an Executive Director of The Second Mile, and had an office just steps away from Dr. Raykovitz.  At the very least, Dr. Raykovitz could have alerted the entire Second Mile staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child to Second Mile events, outings and camps.  Dr. Raykovitz also failed to alert CYS/DPW/Childline about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  Dr. Raykovitz instructed Sandusky to wear swimming trunks on future occasions when he showers with young boys.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity (while wearing swim trunks).

Child Protective Services

The evidence shows that Jerry Lauro and John Miller were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed reports with their agencies, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been the subject of abuse complaints by Debra Long (the natural mother of Matt Sandusky).  At the very least, Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller could have alerted The Second Mile in order to prevent Sandusky from one on one contact with children.  Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller also failed to alert the the Centre County courts about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct, even though Mr. Lauro was present at the Sandusky interview. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

The University Park Police

The evidence shows that Tom Harmon and Ronald Schreffler were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed a police report about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a PSU employee for thirty years, and had an office on the PSU campus.  At the very least, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Shreffler could have alerted the entire University Park Police Department in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child onto campus.  Mr. Harmon and Mr. Schreffler also failed to alert the Pennsylvania state police about the 1998 investigation or takeany further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct other Schreffler telling him not to repeat the practice of showering with children.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.