Franco's Statement Calling For BOT Resignations

One of the most precious rights in our legal system is 
the right of due process. This is the protection 
needed so that no one is declared guilty without 
evidence and proof of fact. (The Freeh Report)

All of the principles of due process were ignored on
the evening of November 9, 2011 and that set into 
motion a path of destruction for Penn State University. 
The people who are responsible for this destruction
need to be held accountable. 

Most people, and you would think Penn State people 
in particular, would have given Joe Paterno, Tim 
Curley, Graham Spanier and Gary Schultz the respect 
of due process and the benefit of the doubt. There is 
no doubt that the self-interests and actions of the 
executive committee prevailed over the majority of the 
board and the principles of due process. The majority 
remained silent and cowed and did nothing to defend 
our great university.

It’s amazing how the members of this executive 
committee keep praising themselves for all the great 
things they claim to be doing. These are the same 
people that compromised our principles and our 
University. Their actions on that evening of 
November 9, 2011 set in motion a pattern of actions 
that are still felt today. 

We alumni and students have a lot of passion for our 
University. We want healing and unity and we do 
want to move forward. But first we need for the 
executive committee and Tom Corbett to remove 
themselves from the BOT in the best interest of Penn 
State. One thing is certain, the people who brought us 
to this point are not, I repeat are not, the people to 
move us forward.

So we are requesting that those members of the 
executive committee on the evening of November 9, 
2011 immediately remove themselves from the Penn 
State BOT. John Surma has already removed 
himself…the rest of this committee need to put Penn 
State first by also removing themselves from the 
board. We are asking Jim Broadhurst, Ken Frazier, 
Ed Hintz, Linda Strumpf, Karen Peetz, Keith Masser 
and Tom Corbett to remove themselves immediately.

Then we can work on moving forward.

Franco Harris ‘72

7/11 Marks Beginning of the End for Freeh, BOT

Spanier lawsuit, coalescence of athlete support, and the release of JZ's book are the beginning of what will be a punishing offensive aimed at Freeh and the "old guard" of the PSU BOT.

By
Ray Blehar

If the PSU Truth (not truther) movement wants to mark a day when the it finally began to fight back, then 7/11 could be that day.

Former President Graham Spanier Files Suit Against Louis Freeh

If there was anything that was a long-time coming, it had to be a lawsuit against hack investigator Louis Freeh, who also was once the Director of the FBI.  President Spanier filed that law suit today for slander and defamation.  While the details of the lawsuit are not yet available, Mr. Freeh's claims that Spanier concealed Sandusky's abuse for over a decade are clearly not supported by the trial verdicts in this case.  Freeh's scant evidence, along with the dubious testimony of former PSU General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, formed the basis for charges against Spanier in the Conspiracy of Nonsense grand jury presentment issued in November 2012.

The evidence against Spanier, as well as Curley and Schultz, in this presentment is, well, simply nonsense.  While I have not done an in-depth analysis of the details (yet), I previewed them in this blog post about Cynthia Baldwin's possible perjurious statements regarding her meetings with the three men to discuss grand jury subpoeana 1179.

I often refer to the Conspiracy of Nonsense presentment as the Cynthia Baldwin Diaries and The Freeh Report Light.

Read the writ of summons filed by Spanier here.

Cappy among 200 supporters of lawsuit

John Cappelletti, PSU's only Heisman Trophy winner, jointed 200 former-athletes who signed the petition supporting the Paterno lawsuit against the NCAA.  The petition was organized by former player Brian Massella.  New signees to the petition include former PSU football greats D.J. Dozier and Ki-Jana Carter as well as recent graduate and All-American linebacker, Michael Mauti, Christie Welsch (national soccer POY); Kerry McCoy (NCAA Wrestling champion), and former coaches Bruce Parkhill (men's basketball) and John Fritz (wrestling).

The Paterno lawsuit against the NCAA claims that that PSU was not afforded due process under the NCAA By-Laws and that the NCAA violated those By-laws by using the Freeh Report rather than conducting its own investigation.

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against the Consent Decree (signed by Erickson), compensatory, and punitive damages, among other relief.

More here

Ziegler's book highlights Freeh's omission of evidence

On Wednesday, John Ziegler released his book and today the media has proven they're either too obsessed with sex, too stupid, or just willfully ignoring the fact that the transcripts of the October 2011 interview of Joe Paterno provide, if not exculpatory, at least a different take on the decision not to report Sandusky to the state level Department of Public Welfare.  (Note: This statement does not preclude the viable alternative that PSU reported the 2001 incident to the county agency).

In the Freeh Report, one piece of e-mail evidence (Exhibit 5G) is the sole source for Freeh's conclusion that Joe Paterno changed the plan by Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to report the incident to DPW.  Freeh pointed to the phrase, "after talking it over with Joe yesterday" as evidence to draw a "reasonable" conclusion that Paterno's conversation changed the course of history.

Of course, no one knows what Curley talked to Joe about - or if he even talked to Joe at all and wasn't just telling a "white lie" to put some extra weight behind HIS decision to do things only slightly differently than originally planned.  It is important to note that competent readers (that would exclude a certain former FBI-Director)  have come to realize that the plan to contact DPW remained in place as an option, just as in the original plan.

However, the big news from the police interview (note to those in the media still trying to figure this out) was that Paterno stated he NEVER talked with Curley again after his initial meeting with him.  So, this police interview, which was obviously available to Louis Freeh given his "cooperation" with the Office of Attorney General, didn't get mentioned in the report.

Much like other possible exculpatory evidence or evidence that was damaging to others outside PSU, Freeh excluded it from his report.

What's Ahead

Fayette BOT Meeting:  Tomorrow at the Fayette Campus, SMSS's Linda Berkland will get three minutes to address the BOT.   Linda has made tremendous contributions to the efforts with her videos Lies and Contradictions and More Lies and Contributions.  

Report 3:  I will be releasing Report 3, which analyzes the  investigation, grand jury presentment, and the prosecutorial strategy in the Commonwealth v. Sandusky case.  The release should come in the next few weeks and will contain new evidence about the case.

Kane Investigation:  Two investigations are currently in progress.  The Office of Attorney General's investigation, led by Geoffrey Moulton, is reviewing the 2008-2011 investigation of Sandusky and other related informaton.  AG Kane stated she "will leave no stone unturned."  Good news for truth seekers.

Federal Investigation:  Also, based on reliable sources, a federal investigation continues of The Second Mile (TSM).  According to a well-placed source, the Federal investigation was put on hold pending the trials of PSU officials, but trial delays continue, and the Feds are pressing forward.  While the former-AG, Linda Kelly, gave the charity a complete pass for harboring a child molester for over a decade, I don't think the Feds will be so....charitable.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/07/11/3684805/organizer-heisman-trophy-winner.html#storylink=cpy

Mark Dent's Hatchet Job

The e-mail exchange I had with Mark Dent proves that the piece Dent wrote was an intentional hatchet job and it was illogical to boot.

By
Ray Blehar

My brother sent me a text message yesterday, while I was traveling back from Mississippi, that I had made the front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  I returned the text with a question "About Franco?"

I then pulled up the story to read the highly inaccurate account of the information I relayed to Mark Dent around Memorial Day of this year.  It read as follows:

In State College, Mr. Blehar attempted to discredit the testimony of some of Sandusky's victims, saying they exaggerated how small and young they were when they were sexually violated by Sandusky. In a later email exchange, Mr. Blehar wrote, "[prosecutor Joe] McGettigan coached many of the witnesses into changing their stories." He said his purpose of dissecting their testimony was to draw attention to Pennsylvania's child protective services.

There are numerous inaccuracies in these three sentences - a feat in itself.  

First, and I made this very clear to Mark Dent, I was focusing on the prosecution's manipulation of witness testimony.  Note, that I said witness testimony and not victim testimony.  My presentation in State College also addressed the likely manipulation of the testimony of witnesses Anthony Sassano and Ronald Petrosky. My upcoming report will address manipulation of defense witness testimony as well.

Second, the focus was clearly on the prosecutor's actions, not those of the victims.  Manipulation is commonly done in trials and is more commonly referred to as "leading the witness" or "asking leading questions."  Judge Cleland noted that McGettigan got away with this quite frequently at the trial.

Finally, it does not make sense for a person to discredit victim testimony if their intention is "to draw attention to Pennsylvania's child protection services."

I would like to say I'm surprised that this passage made it by an editor - but I'm not.  This type of journalism and worse has been typical in the reporting on the Sandusky Scandal.

E-mails were quite clear

The following is the e-mail exchange with Mark Dent.  It is clear that Dent, who stated he understood the concept of anchoring, intentionally ignored the entire theme of my State College presentation.

Mark Dent <mdent@post-gazette.com>	May 23
to rayblehar Ray,This is Mark Dent of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. I'm working on a story about Franco Harris and as part  of it I'm discussing the Upon Further Review panels that he hosts. I went to the one he had in State College  last month, and you spoke there. I wanted to ask you something about part of your presentation: At one  point, you were talking about Victim 4 and discussing his testimony and how the height that he said he  was was likely inaccurate. You also pointed out that McGettigan called the victims little kids and then you  showed that the victims were between ages 13-16 for the most part when the abuse took place. Why did  you choose to dissect these matters? Is there a particular point you are trying to make by pointing this out?  I didn't quite understand when you were discussing it there. Thanks, Mark 412-439-3791 Ray Blehar  May 23 to Mark Mark, From the publishing of the grand jury presentment and through the trial, the OAG's communications were such to "anchor" a narrative in the minds of the public that "little children" were being abused  on Penn State's campus.  This is a false narrative. In the first part of the presentation, I showed that based on the trial verdicts over half (24) the crimes  occurred off campus.  Only 15 counts were specific to PSU's campus.  6 counts (Victim 4) were on  and off campus.  So, the characterization of these crimes were tied to Sandusky's access to PSU  facilities - as Louis Freeh claimed - isn't supported by the verdicts. Near the end, I pointed out how Prosecutor McGettigan coached witnesses into saying they were  "little kids" and how small and weak they were.   Victim 4 was nearly 14 years old the first time he  showered with Sandusky - he was not a little kid.  Nor was he four feet tall when he was 14!   Victim 7,  who was 10 or 11 at the time he met Sandusky, said Sandusky was 3 or 4 times larger than he was.   Photographs show that not to be the case.  McGettigan suggested to the janitor that the "young boy"  he saw was waist or chest high.  The janitor corrected him and said the person he saw was shoulder  height -- a teenager.   If you believe that Victim 2 is the person filing the lawsuit as Victim 2, then he was  14.5 years old at the time McQueary witnessed the incident in the shower.  Again, Victim 2 was  characterized as a 10 year old or a pre-pubescent boy.   Juror Joshua Harper was swayed by McGettigan's tactics at the trial.  Harper said, "It is so offensive to  corrupt a little boy."  However, as my chart showed, the youngest victims had only one interaction  with Sandusky (and except for Victim 10, whose story has problems), there were no charges  of indecent assault in those cases. McGettigan coached many of the witnesses into changing their stories.  I will cover all of those instances  in an upcoming report.  And he didn't just coach the victims, but he coached the cop (Sassano) and  the caseworker (Dershem). I've enclosed the presentation for your review. Regards, Ray Ray Blehar <r May 23 to Mark Mark, One other thing -- in our society, crimes against children and the elderly are considered particularly heinous.   The emphasis on the crimes against Victim 2 and Victim 8 were characterized as such.  The OAG's icing  on the cake was to include an elderly man, who know suffers from dimentia, as the witness to the V8 crime.    The Victim 8 crime is rather implausible as testified to by Petrosky.  Petrosky's trial testimony was so  questionable that I suspect that's why Freeh used the much more believable story from the grand jury  presentment in his report. Mark Dent <mdent@post-gazette.com> May 24 to me Ray, I understand what you said about the "anchoring." I was just curious as to why you believe this is  relevant and what cause you believe this may further? Thanks Ray Blehar < May 24 to Mark Its relevant because it deflects attention away from the people who really enabled Sandusky's abuse.  DPW. CYS, and the Second Mile were at fault, not PSU.  PSU reported the 2001 incident and the report  was ignored. Ray Blehar  May 24 to Mark The goal is to get the Child Protective Services fixed in the state of Pennsylvania. After the DPW or CYS  are contacted abuse continues to occur in 50 percent of the cases. Ray Blehar  May 24 to Mark That is based on a 2008 Health and Human Services report of a review of the Department of Public Welfare

The exchange clearly shows that Dent understood many details behind the presentation and had the presentation at his disposal, yet chose to write something that was not only taking the presentation out of context -- but never even mentioned the context, which was "anchoring" nor did he bother to cite any of the facts about Pennsylvania's failing child protection system.

Grace period?

Dent later goes on to state:


But as Penn State continues to move on from the Sandusky scandal and Mr. Harris and his "team" veer further toward personal vendettas and the questioning of Sandusky victims, how long can the grace period endure?

This particular passage was used in transition to the lone voice among former players, Chuck Franzetta, who seems to get a lot of press attention for his support of the Board's decisions on Paterno and the Sandusky scandal.  Apparently, Chuck's questioning of Franco's motives are, according to Mark Dent, a signal that the "grace period" for speaking out against the rush to injustice against Penn State and Paterno is on the horizon.

Dent has that wrong too.

It is only a matter of time before the truth of the scandal is revealed.  

And it will be proven those who are questioning the actions of not only the PSU BOT, but everything and everyone else involved with this scandal are doing so in the best interest of Pennsylvania's children.

When did Ray Gricar close his Sandusky investigation?

The timeline of the May 1998 investigation of Sandusky supports the theory that Tom Harmon informed Schultz that no charges would be filed -- but when did Ray Gricar arrive at that conclusion?

By

Ray Blehar

The police report and the timelines of the May 1998 investigation of Sandusky support the theory that the decision to close down the investigation was based on DPW's decision -- not Ray Gricar's.  Once Harmon heard from DPW, he e-mailed Schultz and told him no charges would be filed.

However, there is evidence, based on an April 15, 2012 Patriot News article, that indicates Ray Gricar may have continued to press on with the investigation.  The article states:

"Sloane told The Patriot-News he had thrown the tape and Dictaphone into a desk with other stuff and forgotten about it until he began to clean for a move.

The hour-long recording is mostly inaudible. However, Sloane’s own voice says this on the tape:

'Oct. 13, 1998. Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, Gricar. Investigation going to Penn State meeting. Ray. Fran Ganter. Ron Schreffler is taking us to the football building and I will finish this memo, Sue, and either Ray will type something, handwrite something or he’ll tell me to dictate this and I’ll give you the tape when we get back. Thanks.'

Schreffler was the lead investigator in the May 1998 Sandusky complaint. Ralston was a police officer who assisted in the case.

When contacted, Sloane said he could not remember or explain why Gricar would have a meeting at the football building in October...He also wasn’t sure if it was related to Sandusky or another case."

The PN report leads you to believe there was nothing on the tape that may have provided insights about what the investigation going to PSU was about, however, please remind yourself that the PN's coverage of the Sandusky scandal wasn't exactly stellar - and Sara Ganim has a Pulitzer Prize to prove it. 

Bottom line: a full review of the audio tape is required.

Sloane, who severely injured his back in a 2000 accident, got addicted to pain killers and has issues with his memory.  He is not exactly a reliable source of information (perfect for Sara Ganim's articles).  However, the article notes that two policemen were involved -- Ralston and Schreffer -- and they served two different police departments.

One thing we've not seen or heard about in the Sandusky scandal is what Ralston reported about his role in the investigation.

1998 Police Reports

In order to find out more about whether this visit to the football building in October 1998 was related to the Sandusky investigation, I reached out to a local news reporter for information -- and particularly if Ralph Ralston or the State College Police Department had a file on the case.

The reporter said that requests for this report were denied.

That puts us back at square one, which is the heavily redacted 1998 University Park police report.

In the fall of 2012, I left phone messages for Ron Schreffler inquiring about the suspected alternations to the 1998 police report, however those messages went un-returned. 

Readers of this blog know that the report has alterations on the page referencing the May 8, 1998 scheduling of the Seasock evaluation and on the page referencing the May 13, 1998 sting at the home of Victim 6.

The report is missing several pages that would have referenced the activities that occurred between the May 13, 1998 sting and the June 1, 1998 interview of Sandusky.  One of the items missing would be the May 19, 1998 sting which appears to be referenced in the Freeh Report as pages 15, 16, and 17.  Freeh references the closure of the investigation as page 18 of the report, however, I don't believe it is safe to assume that no other pages were appended (aside from the transcripts from the two boys and the reports from Seasock and Chambers).

Former ADA J. Karen Arnold

Other missing pages could have included records of conversations regarding next steps or the filing of charges with then-ADA J. Karen Arnold and DA Gricar.  These conversations were referenced in Schreffler's testimony at the Sandusky trial, however Schreffler did not state when these conversations took place - thus they may have occurred after 3 June 1998 (the date of the filing of the 1998 police report).

Whatever Schreffler may have spoken about to former ADA J. Karen Arnold is unknown, however, she has added very little information or insights to the 1998 case.  Arnold testified before the 33rd grand jury in the Sandusky case and she told Newslanc reporter Bill Keisling that she only had the 1998 Sandusky case for "two or three days" before DA Gricar, without explanation, took the case from her.  Here's Arnold:

"Ray was my boss and he said he would handle it.  I only had the Sandusky case for a few days. I don't know why Ray handled it the way he did. I can't read his mind. I'm not a mind reader."

Hazy Memories or Something Else?

Over 13 or 14 years, people's memories get a little hazy.  Perhaps Schreffler didn't consult Arnold after she was taken off the case.   His testimony about discussions with Gricar and the filing of charges may not be accurate either.   Schreffler's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette interview stated that he believed Harmon talked with Gricar about closing the case.  And much like Karen Arnold, Schreffler said no explanation was given for not filing charges.  But at the trial he stated he discussed the topic with Gricar.  Which one was it?

 Tom Harmon testified he never talked with Ray Gricar about the 1998 case.  Was Harmon being honest or was something or someone else causing him to remember things differently?

Seems we need some straight answers from Schreffler, as well as his boss, Harmon.

It seems that the norm for the Sandusky case is that things often defy explanation.

A psychology report sent to three agencies is only "seen" by one of the three.

A boy arrives home with dry hair, but the police report, the grand jury, and seemingly everyone else says otherwise.

And evidence that should have been introduced at trial - the Schultz file - to obtain a conviction for the indecent assault of Victim 6 was not used (which, I suppose pales in comparison to the fact that the prosecution and defense both chose not to call a Victim (2) to testify when they could have).

Schultz "Secret File" Not Introduced As Evidence At Trial

The absence of the Schultz file as a Commonwealth exhibit would appear to be another confounding fact of the case.

The Schultz e-mails - allegedly found by Freeh's team - were used to establish some of the charges in the Perjury Particulars that was released on 30 March 2012.  

Freeh's team allegedly also found the "secret file" of Schultz in May 2012 - ample time for the prosecution to utilize it as evidence of an indecent assault against Victim 6.   Multiple showers by the victim are evidence of the possible molestation and its hard to believe the state didn't press this point at that trial.   I know whenever I mention that fact, most parents visibly cringe at what that means to them.  And the words on Schultz's note couldn't be more clear.

Mother concerned something 

more - Kid took another 

shower last night & this a.m.

It is notable that the 1998 police report and Dr. Alycia Chambers' psychological report do not specifically note that Victim 6 took multiple showers after arriving home from working out and showering with Sandusky.  But if you tie the two reports together,  it's clear that's what happened.

Excerpt Dr. Chambers report:

Also, Dr. Chambers and I had a discussion of the incident last fall and she stated that the boy's hair was dry when he arrived home because he had a "buzz" cut.

The police report indicated that the mother noted the boy's wet hair when she put him to bed.

So, just to recap: hair didn't look wet when he arrived home, but was wet when she put him to bed.  It was May 4 - not a time when swimming pools are open in Pennsylvania.  Thus it's reasonable to conclude her son took another shower.

And then Dr. Chambers' report notes the shower the next morning.  

The reports above provide conclusive evidence that Victim 6 took multiple showers after showering with Sandusky.  

The Grand Jury Presentment and the Freeh Report both ignored this evidence and instead perpetuated the myth that the mother got upset because her son arrived home with wet hair.  

The failures of the former-OAG and Freeh to mention multiple showers was not an odd coincidence, but as the Bagwell e-mails revealed, it was a coordinated effort.  However, this omission of evidence was not in an effort to convict Sandusky, but  to ensure that DPW and CYS were not saddled with any responsibility for enabling Sandusky's abuse.

And, not so ironically, both the OAG and Louis Freeh stated that Ray Gricar closed the 1998 case on June 1, 1998. 

Is this a matter of the parties making an erroneous assumption, or is it incompetency (for Freeh, perhaps), or is it something more? 

At this point, no one knows when Ray Gricar decided not to charge Sandusky for the 1998 cases.  There are no records of a decision not to prosecute.  And much like the failure to report charges against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier -- it's impossible to prove a negative.

However, I am quite certain that additional evidence will surface that indicates Ray Gricar pressed forward with his investigation of Sandusky beyond 1 June 1998.

Developing...