Correction: Sara Ganim is NOT an investigative journalist

Sara Ganim's Pulitzer Prize was for local reporting, not investigative journalism.  In other words, if a cat was stuck in a tree in Harrisburg, no one could have covered it better than Ganim.

By
Ray Blehar

In Saturday's blog, I was critical of Sara Ganim for not following up on leads that she should have seen when writing her story about the missing psychology reports.   I did so because I presumed Sara was an investigative reporter.

I was wrong.

Sara Ganim's Pulitzer Prize was for "local reporting" and not "investigative journalism."  But the Pulitzer Committee still isn't off the hook for awarding the prize to Ganim.

Here's the citation:

"For a distinguished example of reporting on significant issues of local concern, demonstrating originality and community expertise, using any available journalistic tool, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000)."

Certainly, the Sandusky scandal was a significant issue of local concern, but the rest of the citation is a bit overstated.

Originality -- Is it Memorex or Sara Ganim?

For the most part, and in the article I evaluated, Ganim is simply writing what she was told by a source (Jerry Lauro) who has serious credibility issues.  The police report revealed he was untruthful about his knowledge of the evaluations of Victim 6.  Other articles that I will cover later, reveal a DPW employee who was unaware of the Child Protective Services Laws.

In short, Sara Ganim was little more than a tape recorder --  and then transcriber of information.

Still waiting for that first big scoop from her at CNN....

Originality -- Who was "deep throat?"

Just as in the case of Woodward and Bernstein, it is evident from a review of Ganim's articles that she had a highly placed source who could provide her with information not available to the public.  Among the information the source likely provided was:

- the name of the mother of Victim 6;
- knowledge of the Sandusky investigating grand jury;
- McQueary's handwritten statement to police;
- Dranov's grand jury testimony;
- Information about the police report and psychology reports (pre-publication);
- The name of the DPW investigator, Lauro, and police detective Ronald Schreffler.

It's pretty easy to get scoops when you are being spoon fed the best information.

Community Expertise

If Sara Ganim really had community expertise, she would have broken the story of the investigation long before March 31, 2011.

My sources told me that the Sandusky investigation was the "buzz" at the 2010 Second Mile golf tournament.  In addition, those "in the know" at the tournament stated that Sandusky would not be arrested until after the governor's race was over.

She could have done a lot more digging - as others have - about the failures of CYS and DPW in protecting children over the years.  But instead, her focus was on promoting the false narrative of a cover-up at Penn State.

Bias

As I am reviewing her Pulitzer articles, I note the same biases I pointed out in Saturday's blog.  For example, the November 17, 2011 article written about Second Mile donors spends a lot of print talking about Lloyd and Dottie Huck and Lloyd Huck's association with Merck.  But there's not a single mention of Merck CEO and current BOT member, Kenneth Frazier.

Similarly, much ink is spent on DrueAnne Schreyer, daughter of Paterno friend, Bill Schreyer (the late, former CEO of Merrill Lynch).  Yet, not a word about the donations from US Steel, whose chairman, John Surma is currently on the PSU BOT.

Also, not a word about Ira Lubert, who sat on the Board of The Second Mile from 2005 to 2008 and had donated his Greenhills property in Reading for Sandusky's Second Mile summer camps.

For the most part, the information above can be found by reading The Second Mile Annual Reports.  So, how was it that Ganim wrote of the ties between PSU, the Hucks, and the Schreyers, but not about Surma/US Steel, Frazier/Merck, and Ira Lubert?

Interesting.

Silent No More

Ganim wrote a review of the book, Silent No More, where she stated her reporting on the Sandusky scandal was story was 100% accurate.  As of Saturday, we all know that not to be true.

Also, Silent No More blows apart some of the reports made by Ganim about the 2008 to 2011 investigation of Sandusky, such as the discovery of the 1998 PSU investigation occurring in June 2009 as opposed to Ganim's version of the police file being discovered in early January 2011.

Ganim was critical of author Gillum for stating he didn't know the reason why then Centre County District Attorney Michael Madiera referred the case to the Attorney General's office, citing press reports about Madiera's conflict of interest.

But again, Ganim missed an opportunity to investigate why Madiera sent it to the AG and not back to the Clinton County District Attorney -- which would have been the more logical course of action.  In short, she just went with rationale given by Madiera and apparently didn't think to ask about the alternative.

Additionally, had Ganim reviewed the CPSL, she would have learned that Clinton County CYS should have referred their investigation to the Department of Public Welfare, rather than conducting the investigation themselves (because of Sandusky's association with The Second Mile making him an "agent" of the county).

Missing the bigger stories

Sara Ganim became a media darling, appearing on the Sunday morning talk shows for her coverage of the Sandusky scandal.  In a press account about her winning the Pulitzer Prize, she stated:

"I have a police scanner on my nightstand. I fall to sleep and wake up to the morning news. I work 60-hour weeks digging and investigating, chatting up sources, and peeling back layers until I find amazing stories."

The "amazing" story about her coverage of the Sandusky scandal is how little "digging" she actually did and how many things she got wrong.

In fact, she missed the bigger stories about this scandal or, at best, covered them superficially.

Those stories are about the sad state of child protection in Pennsylvania and the bungled Sandusky investigations in 1998 and 2008 to 2011.

But she and the Patriot News weren't about to write those stories.

You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

Lessons in Courage and the Bay of Pigs (or A University is not a Multi-National Corporation)

A letter to the BOT

by
Deborah C. Beidel

When a problematic business situation occurs, particularly when there is bad publicity, companies quickly turn to lawyers. They pay a fine or settlement and use words such as “This settlement should not be construed as an admission of guilt or acknowledgement of wrongdoing” in an attempt to wipe the slate clean. The action is “merely representing payment of disputed claims to avoid the cost and time involved with litigation." Shareholders are satisfied and the public moves on to the next news story.

Clearly, this was the BOT’s initial strategy with respect to Penn State’s alleged involvement with Mr. Sandusky’s criminal behavior. Lawyers were engaged, fines were paid, and the Freeh report (settlement) allowed guilt to be deflected away from the University/BOT. However, alumni are not shareholders and despite initial criticism of the report, the BOT circled the wagons, refused to consider alternative opinions and squelched dissent, even among its own members. The BOT’s structure reveals its incestuous nature – individuals have served for many years, some are elected based on friendships and business relationships and some are political appointments. This structure has resulted in GroupThink, defined as flawed group dynamics that can let bad ideas go unchallenged and yield disastrous outcomes (Janis, 1971). So enamored of their Trustee status, members squelch any misgivings to remain an insider. GroupThink can lead to grave and disastrous consequences such as the Bay of Pigs invasion.

And now Penn State faces its own Bay of Pigs disaster. The carefully orchestrated Freeh report has been discredited by James Clemente’s “Education Guide to the Identification and Prevention of Child Sexual Victimization.” While eviscerating Freeh’s conclusions, Clemente’s greatest service is educating all of us about sexual predators. Yet to date, the BOT leadership has remained silent about the Clemente report, clinging to a deeply flawed alternative, and hoping that the previous narrative will remain sufficient. 

After the Bay of Pigs disaster, JFK said “an error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” 

This is the choice that the BOT now faces. Will they drop their “we know what’s best for Penn State attitude”, re-examine the Freeh report and make informed corrections? Rather than GroupThink and ribbons on helmets, will they admit the possibility of an error, change course and honestly lead on the issue that has ripped apart our community? Some members of the BOT have stepped forward to suggested re-examination, courageously suggesting that errors need not become mistakes. Let’s hope that their actions will inspire the leadership and other trustees to do likewise - for the children, for our university, for us all.

Ganim Preview: Article on Psych Reports Required Corrections

Sara Ganim's story on Jerry Lauro was pre-mature and demanded corrections when new information surfaced.  Those corrections never materialized.

by

Ray Blehar 

First off, I don't know Sara Ganim.  I've never met her or spoke to her.  I am not in the business of making personal attacks on people and I urge anyone who reads this blog not to engage in such behavior.  It is hurtful and non-productive.

After reading many of her columns, I was struck by the number of factual errors I found that could have been prevented had Sara simply done an internet search or two on her computer.  

Another important issue is "never rely on a single source" which in my employment as an analyst is rule number one.  In other words, instead of running with a story based on a single source, it may have better served Sara to wait a day until she could review the facts herself or confirm it with other sources.

Finally, there is the issue of slanting a story a certain way before the facts are known or to build on the narrative that existed at the time.  We all know the prevailing narrative was a cover up at Penn State.  However, had Ms. Ganim waited a day to review the evidence, she may have uncovered a new, completely different narrative.

The following story is one of her articles that would have been well served by all the above.

Patriot-News Special Report: 1998 Jerry Sandusky investigator would have pursued dropped case if he had seen hidden Penn State police report

1.  Headline promotes the prevailing narrrative -- PSU was covering up Sandusky's crimes.

Published: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 6:00 AM     Updated: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 12:23 PM

2.  Published one day before the public release of the 1998 PSU police report, the Chambers report, and the Seasock report.

By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News The Patriot-News

The state Department of Public Welfare investigator who closed a child sexual abuse investigation against Jerry Sandusky in 1998 said he likely would not have closed it had he seen reports from two psychologists who interviewed the young accuser.

3.  Only one psychologist (Chambers) interviewed Victim 6.  The other report was that of an unlicensed counselor (Seasock).

4.  The investigation involved two boys, not one.  This should have raised questions, such as, were there evaluations done on the second boy and if not, why not?   

"The course of history could have been changed,” Lauro said.

Jerry Lauro, brought in to investigate the child abuse claims against Sandusky, said Wednesday that Penn State police never shared those conflicting reports with him before he closed the case. Lauro said he closed the case because he did not believe there was enough evidence based solely on interviews.

5.  Lauro was completely aware of the second evaluation and he instructed CYS to arrange it, according to the 1998 police report. This interview took place on May 8th.  The investigation did not close until June 1st.  So, Lauro knew of the interview and had access to it.  

6. The first psychologic evaluation, conducted by Alycia Chambers, was released to DPW  on or about May 7th.   DPW had the report in its possession for nearly a month.  The Chambers report was also released to CYS (according to my discussion with her on October 12, 2012).  Therefore, DPW could have gotten access to Chambers report through CYS.

Lauro was interviewed by the state grand jury that recently brought 52 child sex abuse charges involving 10 boys against Sandusky, but he said he did not even know that psychologists had evaluated the boy, then 11, until a reporter who acquired the 100-page report approached Lauro and showed him the reports.

7.  Again, Lauro arranged the second evaluation of the child, so he definitely knew of the evaluation conducted by John Seasock.  Ganim would have learned this on March 23rd -- if she read the police report.

Penn State “Detective [Ron] Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” Lauro said, referring to reports from psychologist John Seasock and a female psychologist. Seasock concluded that the boy was not sexually abused two days before the case was closed. The report of the female psychologist who evaluated the boy right after the incident found Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming a victim for sexual abuse.

8.  Lauro may have been honest about Schreffler not sharing the reports with him, but that doesn't explain how Lauro didn't see either report -- especially the one that he arranged. 

“The conclusions she had drawn in her report were pretty damaging,” Lauro said. “I would have made a different decision. ... It’s unbelievable, and it gets my blood pressure going when I think about it.”

Schreffler, when reached by phone, declined comment. “My report speaks for itself,” he said before hanging up.

9.  Shreffler did not decline comment.  He provided a very strong statement about the facts of the case (i.e., "My report speaks for itself.")  Schreffler couldn't have been more right.  His report - even just the 13 or so page version that is publicly available - is a treasure trove of information.

Information about the two psychological reports surfaced last week when Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, made a formal request for copies of them in preparation for trial. Judge John Cleland ruled that Amendola can read them but can’t use them in court without getting his permission.

A source who reviewed the documents told The Patriot-News that he believed Seasock’s report that the boy was not abused was the reason that former and missing District Attorney Ray Gricar never pursued charges against Sandusky in 1998.

Gricar’s role has become the subject of much fodder and conjecture for two reasons: The case is the only other known time that police knew of allegations against Sandusky. And Gricar vanished in 2005. He was declared dead last summer but his case still stumps investigators, who say they have no evidence that his disappearance is linked to the Sandusky case.

When child abuse is reported, police and county Children and Youth Services typically conduct separate investigations. They work together but can have different conclusions.

In this case, since Centre County CYS worked closely with Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, Lauro was brought in from the state Department of Public Welfare to do the child abuse investigation.

10.  A search of the PA Child Protective Services Laws would have revealed that DPW was required to investigate ANY CASE involving an incident where the subject was an employee of a child welfare organization of Centre County, whether CYS had a close working relationship with that organization or not.

Schreffler and Penn State police closed the criminal investigation at Gricar’s request. But Lauro still could have decided to pursue the case within child protective services.

11. According to the police report, the investigation was concluded immediately after Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky on June 1, 1998.  Nothing in the report mentions that Gricar directed the case to be closed. 

That doesn’t mean Sandusky would have been charged. But it means the finding could have gone into the child abuse registry and The Second Mile might have been notified.

12.  A search of the laws  (Pa. 055  § 3490.91. and Pa. 055  § 3490.56.) would have revealed that  Centre County CYS was required, within 24 hours of receiving the report of suspected abuse,  to inform The Second Mile that Sandusky was under investigation and that CYS was required to notify The Second Mile at the end of the investigation, regardless of whether there was a finding of abuse.  

Lauro has said Schreffler also never told him the details of a meeting set up by police between Sandusky and the boy’s mother, in which police were listening secretly from another room. Prosecutors say Sandusky admitted to the mother that he touched her son and said, “I wish I were dead.”

“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room,” Lauro said last year. “He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.’ “

13.  As an investigative reporter, how could Ganim not be suspicious or skeptical about Lauro's statement regarding not knowing the details of what transpired in that sting?  

The mother of Victim Six says that she had believed Seasock was a paid consultant for CYS when she took her son to see him.

14. An internet search would have revealed that Seasock was employed by Renaissance Psychological Associates.  A day later, Ganim had access to the police report and Seasock's report that clarified the relationship between Seasock and CYS.

The other psychologist, whom the mother had contacted as soon as her son came home and told her that Sandusky had forced him to take a shared shower, saw her son over a longer period of time, she said.

15. The mother called the psychologist the next morning not that night.  Ganim would have learned this the day after this article was written.

“And that psychologist concluded that this incident ... was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” said a source who saw the report.

<end of article>

March 23, 2012:  1998 Police Report, Seasock Report, and Chambers Report

The day after the publishing of the above article, the 1998 Police Report, the Seasock Report, and the Chambers report were released to the public.

The 1998 police report blows quite a few holes in Lauro's version of the 1998 investigation and what he knew or didn't know.  It strains credulity that Lauro could have set up the second evaluation and then never asked or sought out the report before closing his case.

The Chambers report provides information to correct the date and time that the mother of Victim 6 called the psychologist.

The Seasock report states for whom he was employed and the police report shows that he was brought into the investigation by CYS -- at the request of DPW and, most significantly, against the orders of Assistant District Attorney Karen Arnold.

The latter is quite a development and would seem rather newsworthy, but the Patriot News did not report those facts in the days following the release of the three reports (or ever, based on searches of their web-site).

The Lauro narrative became the accepted version of events -- that somehow the Chambers report "got lost" and that Seascock mysteriously appeared and provided the fateful evaluation that cleared Sandusky.

Many of us have known for some time that Lauro's narrative was questionable, if not false. 

REPEAT:  Please refrain from any personal attacks on Ms. Ganim or anyone else associated with the Patriot News.  

Revisiting Freeh

A look at what happened between the release of the Freeh Report and the release of the Paterno Report.

By
Bill Bender

With the renewed interest in the Freeh Report spawned by release of the Sollers/Thornburg/Clemente/Berlin (hereafter Sollers), rebuttal, it’s worth recapping what we already know about Judge Freeh and his famous missive.

Freeh has stood his ground, defended his work, and the initial wave of emotion has passed through the various camps that see this issue from diametrically opposed points of view.  Prior to Sollers the Freeh report was the subject of extensive criticism from those who questioned its methodology, conclusions, and manner of presentation, as well as some serious critical review by experts with an eye towards due process. 

Those critical reviews along with the work of numerous individuals who took it upon themselves to scrutinize both the report and the man behind it identified the majority of its failures well before Sollers introduced his conclusions on Feb 10^th, 2013. But until the Sollers report garnered national media attention, the only ones paying attention were the Penn State faithful, ‘true crime’ aficionados, and those Americans whose intuition told them something was radically wrong.  Now that Freeh’s work is under review and in the spotlight of the MSM, let’s revisit what we learned subsequent to the Freeh report’s release:

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) undertook a review of the report in July 2012, conducted by lawyers among their number, and reached many of the same technical conclusions as Sollers. No one paid much attention.  After all, the source was highly partisan and the media had one of those ‘stories of the year’ in hand, so why dampen the heady times by publishing a fact-based challenge to the report that confirmed the suspicions of a vocal minority. PS4RS of course wasn’t alone in voicing their doubts. Prominent alums such as Franco Harris, media watchdog John Zeigler, and radio personality Kevin Slaten were and continue to be the most heard voices of reason, but our own committed group here at SMSS, and others like us, also pointed out the obvious failings.  Some of us even openly questioned the motives behind Freeh’s Framing document, something Sollers apparently wasn’t authorized to do, but those answers were and remain murky.  The point is, even mid-2012 we were questioning Freeh’s email ‘evidence’, lack of subpoena power, his dearth of meaningful interviews, and his conclusions spun from the dust of a suspicious agenda.

The Penn State Board of Trustees (BOT) challenged Webster to replace “incredulous” with a word that could capture the reaction of the Penn State community when the BoT proclaimed they had no intention of formally reviewing or accepting Freeh’s report, and went further to state they were only interested in the recommendations that guided them in seeking reforms to institutional governance. What did this mean? With everything on the line as it was, this indicated to many of us the BoT did NOT want to be placed in the position of defending Freeh’s conclusions.

Why?

 If they were in agreement simply saying so would cause no more damage than remaining silent, and avoid some of the more strident calls for their collective heads. When it comes to motive, the conventional wisdom among the dissenting alumni finds its answer in some sort of instruction to Freeh to “get us out of this."

Within hours of Freeh’s dramatic announcement and the report’s release Ken Frazier had echoed the report’s indictment of “The Big Four” while attempting an air of self-condemnation for the BOT’s failure to provide oversight.  Though he spit the names of the newly accused out as if announcing the latest lottery winners within hours of the report’s release, he looked, well, rather nervous. Actually he looked rather guilty. 

 

We’ll come back to Mr. Frazier in a bit.

So in mid-2012 we knew the BOT had established and was handling this internal investigation in ways that should have had the satellite trucks back in State College in droves.

The Second Mile.    You remember them, the charity Jerry Sandusky started in 1977 which ultimately was the source of the children he was convicted of abusing.  They don’t get mentioned much in the media, not nearly as much as Penn State, and of course The Big Four.  They have an interesting history, and interesting donors and financials.  You can learn a good deal about the latter through Ray Blehars’ articles here on SMSS. 

In September 2012 the blog site Tom In Paine dropped a ‘bombshell’ in revealing the bank where Freeh was vice chairman and General Counsel during the time of Sandusky’s grooming ways was a major corporate sponsor of Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile.  Further, despite credentials which proclaimed him free of Penn State ties, it was revealed Freeh was close friends with Ric Struthers, vice president and head of the credit card division of the bank in question, MBNA. Struthers sat on the board of directors of Sandusky’s Second Mile until around 2006.  Struthers was largely credited with the MBNA partnership with Penn State and its Alumni Association that resulted in thousands of MBNA credit card accounts among students and alumni, and of course profits measured in multiple seven figures.  When this article was published there were unheard cries of conflict of interest. 

No one in the MSM picked it up, or followed that trail.

MBNA went so far as to sponsor and attend a Testimonial Dinner at Penn State in honor of Jerry Sandusky.  Does this implicate MBNA, Ric Struthers, and Louis Freeh in Sandusky’s activities?  No, of course not.  Does it constitute a major conflict of interest in Freeh’s firm undertaking the Penn State investigation?  We should probably ask the media, they have a head for these things, don’t they?  

Sollers didn’t go after this, though we’ve known about it since last year, but maybe because it wasn’t a Pulitzer winning journalist who told us about it, no one listened.

 Louis Freeh.   Imagine you sit on the Board of Trustees of a national public university that enjoys an academic, athletic, and ethical track record long the envy of your peers, and you’ve just been blindsided by a scandal the scope and nature of which demands a reasoned, deliberate response by seasoned professionals and leaders. With the resources available to you, you can acquire some of the most proven, respected, and uncontroversial figures in the fields of criminal and corporate investigation to assist in both crisis management and investigation.  Your immediate goal is two-fold:  engage outside resources to investigate whose credibility is beyond reproach, and develop and deploy a strategic communication plan that holds the jump-to-conclusions crowd at bay as you sort things out. 

That is, if your goal is a forthright examination of what went wrong and how it went wrong. 

The Penn State BOT did neither.

We don’t know why the BOT chose to act as they did, the theories are numerous, and for the most part are on the side of logic.  What they chose to do was hire a man shrouded in controversy through his tenure as FBI Director. His questionable track record was no more a secret in 2011 than it is now. Due diligence would have quickly disclosed his MBNA ties to Struthers and the Second Mile, his botched FIFA investigation, his tendency to grandstand  to make himself look good at the expense of others including his own organization, and most importantly, the long term damage he brought upon the credibility and reputation of the FBI. But the BOT perhaps saw other qualities in Louis Freeh that suited their needs.

Louis Freeh, Part II, the Contract. Actually, we don’t KNOW that there is a contract between Penn State and Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan.  Requests from PS4RS and other alumni-interested parties to review this agreement have gone unheeded, well, been refused, politely, sort of. 

Pennsylvania State Education Secretary Ron Tomalis, who is also a Gov Corbett appointee to the BoT, says he doesn’t have these records. Tomalis is also the vice-chairman of the Penn State “Special Investigative Committee” (SIC) that hired Louis Freeh to….well we’re not sure what they hired Louis Freeh to do, that’s the problem in not having access to the contract.  Why would a public servant, not to mention the BoT, withhold this information from the taxpayers who shelled out part of the $6.5 price tag, and a university community hungry for real answers, if there is nothing to hide about a simple contract for services?
   

Ken Frazier.  The Chairman of the SIC is Bot member Ken Frazier, the one whose venomous words for Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno came so quickly after the publication of Freeh’s report.  Although there were no leaks about the report from Freeh’s team, Frazier had a detailed grasp and insight as to the failings of these men after just hours to review the 267 page report. 

Don’t believe me?  Good, I don’t believe it either.

Frazier is CEO of Merck.  One of his predecessors at Merck also sits on the BOT, Lloyd Huck.  Lloyd Huck’s wife Dottie was a board member of the Second Mile.  Now, without casting undue aspersions, I’ll borrow from a Nov 2011 Deadspin article to offer the point:

“Penn State, the school accused of covering up Sandusky's alleged crimes, has begun its own inquiry, which is headed by a man with a history of engaging in cover-ups, and who is chairman of the same company that once was chaired by a member of Penn State's Board of Trustees (Huck), who, in turn, is married to a member of the board of Sandusky's charity. And that man and his wife happen to have donated large sums of money to Penn State and to Sandusky's charity, both individually and through the company whose current chairman is now heading Penn State's investigation. Yeah, Kenneth Frazier is going to crack this thing wide open.” 

 Had Sollers reached a little further and included motive in his review, we might know a lot more about the dealings of the SIC, Ken Frazier, Louis Freeh, and the mysterious contract that brought them all together.

All of the foregoing is of course the tip of the iceberg. Those following this have read most of the thousands of pages of facts, commentary, research, and opinion, and depending on their position either dismiss it out of hand, or feel their anger and suspicion grow. 

An objective observer would have concluded the Freeh selection as the arbiter of truth in this matter as curious, back before Freeh ever interviewed his first anonymous witness. That same observer would be calling for a Grand Jury investigation if it all hadn’t been packaged and sold so cleverly.

The Sollers report has garnered attention, it has changed a few minds, has raised questions in many more minds, and those are good things. But over half a year ago “we” pointed out many of these things, and few listened.  A few more are listening now in the wake of Soller’s report, but most have already closed the front page and turned to the comics section. 

We encourage the Paternos to now move beyond the Freeh Report and  expand Soller’s charter, allowing him to take on new experts, and begin to provide understanding and clarity to the actions of those involved both within and external to Penn State that led to each failure along the way. 

We certainly will continue to do just that.    

Clemente gets it: No one remembers exactly what was said.

Career FBI profiler, Jim Clemente, got it right.  Specific words from a conversation from ten or twelve or fourteen years after the event should not be used as evidence for a criminal investigation.

By
Ray Blehar

During Jim Clemente's interview on "Media Mayhem with Allison Hope Weiner, he makes a very sound observation regarding the testimony of Joe Paterno:

"But they show that after ten years or twelve years or thirteen years, you can't remember specific words that you used in a conversation.  And it's irresponsible for somebody to quote somebody ten years or twelve years after the event and say those are the specific words they used in a specific conversation.  That is absolutely not done it's - it's not proper in a criminal investigation at all."

Just prior to Clement's statement, host Allison Hope Weiner correctly stated that "Paterno could have benefited from better counsel."

Paterno's statements

Everyone focuses on Paterno's statements to the grand jury that McQueary told him it was "fondling" or "something of a sexual nature" as if those were the exact words McQueary used.  That is purely folly, as Clemente points out.  It is Paterno trying to recall a conversation from ten years prior.

However, it is relevant to point out that Paterno said McQueary provided no details during an interview just prior to him testifying at the grand jury.   Here is a summary of Paterno's interview (Exhibit E-1) with the police and personnel from the Attorney General's office.

So, just moments before Paterno is called to testify he states that McQueary didn't give him specific details and moments later, he conjures up a few details that are construed to be the exact words McQueary used.  And those exact words were never verified completely by McQueary -- who has his own memory issues.

McQueary, under cross examination at the preliminary perjury hearing was asked:

Roberto: Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
McQueary: In nature?
Roberto. Yes.
McQueary: I can't remember if I used the word in nature or not, ma'am.  I don't know that.

If McQueary can't remember what he said, and he is approximately 50 years younger than Joe Paterno, it strains credulity that Paterno could remember exactly what was said ten years ago.  Yet, the media and most of the public believes that McQueary said "of a sexual nature" to Joe Paterno.

Again, it is beyond reasonable for anyone to remember the exact words from a conversation occurring ten years earlier.

But to file perjury charges based on an "impression" is even worse.  And that's the case of Gary Schultz.

Schultz Grand Jury Testimony

One should view Schultz's testimony in the context of Schultz assuming he was not the subject of the investigation and trying to be helpful to the state (as was Paterno).  These men were not trying to hide anything.

Schultz's testimony is somewhat similar to Paterno's because he is simply adding information about what he thinks might have happened in the shower, not what McQueary told him about what happened.  Schultz even goes a far as to qualify the statement that McQueary did not tell him the information.  It was an "impression" of the incident that Schultz had -- not the actual report from McQueary.

Obviously, Schultz too, could have benefited from better counsel.

What does his impression of the incident have to do with what McQueary told him?  Moreover, how can an impression be the basis for a perjury charge?

Yet the media has run with this impression as the "report" that Schultz received from McQueary when the transcripts from the grand jury prove that it was certainly not the case.

Tim Curley's Grand Jury Testimony

Tim Curley often qualified what his testimony with the phrase, "I can't remember specifically" or "My recollection was." This certainly indicates that his testimony is not an exact memory of what was said.
Here was his statement about what McQueary told him.

"My recollection was that they were kind of wrestling, there was body contact, and they were horsing around."

As posted here, the Commonwealth made an attempt to rebut this statement through John McQueary's testimony that Mike was not familiar with the term "horsing around" and never would have used that term.  It's a ridiculous argument.

But what is more ridiculous is the AG charging these men for perjury over what is essentially having normal memories (or in the case of Schultz, a pretty bad memory).

The Media

And the media is equally guilty of holding these men to a ridiculously high standard for remembering a ten year old conversation, as well as not performing due diligence in reviewing the transcripts to understand exactly what was said.

Here's an excerpt from a Pulitzer Prize winning story by Sara Ganim.

According to the grand jury, then, here is how McQueary’s eyewitness account became watered down at each stage:
    
McQueary: anal rape.
Paterno: something of a sexual nature.
Schultz: inappropriately grabbing of the young boy’s genitals.
Curley: inappropriate conduct or horsing around.
Spanier: conduct that made someone uncomfortable.
Raykovitz: a ban on bringing kids to the locker room.

Of course, we all now know McQueary never reported an "anal rape."

We also know that McQueary could not recall using the term "in nature" when he spoke with Paterno and that Paterno stated that Mike didn't provide any details.

We also know that Schultz qualified his testimony that McQueary did not tell him about grabbing the boy's genitals and that it was an "impression" that Schultz had.

Curley indeed used the term "horsing around," but the McQueary's say Mike didn't know what that meant.

Spanier essentially reported what Curley told him -- it was "horsing around."

Curley told Raykovitz it was also "horsing around" and not just a ban on Sandusky bringing children into the showers.

Sara Ganim's reports on this scandal have been laden with factual errors and have been extremely biased against PSU officials.  Her incorrect account of the testimony of these men remains of the PN web-site, uncorrected, yet for over a year she's known McQueary never reported an anal rape.

Her performance as a journalist was so poor that I have decided to write a report on just how many facts this Pulitzer Prize winner got wrong and how many times she did not pursue leads that she uncovered in her stories.

Conclusion

It is folly to use the grand jury testimony of these men for bringing perjury charges or to impugn their character.  Pennsylvania is only one of two states (Connecticut is the other) that still use presentments.

I think the answer why is obvious.

Sue Paterno: One woman speaks. What about the rest?

Sue Paterno did a remarkable job in the Katie Couric interview, and when asked, she stated she was not aware of the 1998 incident.  She was not asked what she knew of the 2001 incident. What about the rest of the wives and mothers of the key players?

By
Ray Blehar

Many have asked how the State College community, PSU officials, and others could not have known about Jerry Sandusky.  Sue Paterno was among the many who didn't know and said she had no idea about the 1998 incident or had any inkling of Sandusky's criminal behavior until 2011, when she read the grand jury presentment. 

Katie didn't ask Sue about 2001, so I reached out to a family member who said it was unlikely Joe would have told Sue because he was very careful about concluding anything about people until the facts were known.  In addition, Joe flew to Pittsburgh within one hour of being told by McQueary, then consulted with Curley and Schultz the next morning when he got home.  At that point or shortly after Schultz consulted with Wendell Courtney, Joe would have been told that the information needed to be held confidentially.

About Mothers

Sue is a mother of five and a grandmother of seventeen children.  As a mother and grandmother, if she had known about Jerry Sandusky's behavior, I have no doubt that she would not have stayed silent.  As one person said at the King of Prussia event, "If Sue had known, she would have grabbed a pair of scissors from the kitchen drawer and went after Sandusky herself."

I believe that instinct to protect children is ingrained in most women and if any women involved in this scandal had known that Sandusky was abusing children they would have not stayed silent.

First, they would not have let their children near Sandusky.  Sue Paterno stated she let her children play in the pool with Sandusky on bowl trips.  It has been reported that Tim Curley's son also interacted with Sandusky after 2001.

Also, if they knew of Sandusky's abuse, they would have likely gone to authorities.  None did.

About Married People

I was married for 22 years and can tell you that most married men - at some point - talk to their wives.  Sometimes that talking can even evolve into a conversation.

Depending on the person of course, how open they might be with things will differ. But for the most part, you can find out a lot of good information by talking to the wife - as Katie Couric did with Sue Paterno.

In this case, there are a number of wives who may or may not have been told about the 1998 and/or 2001 incidents. Given the pending court cases, few of these women were free to talk.

I only spoke to one - Dr. Chambers and  I was able to talk to a husband or two and some family members. John Ziegler spoke with Dottie Sandusky.  As for the rest, I'll address the probabilities of their knowledge of the cases.

Dottie Sandusky

Dottie and Jerry Sandusky got married in September 1966, therefore they have been married over 46 years.  Many people have asked how could she not have known?   John Ziegler interviewed Dottie, who still maintains her husband is innocent of his crimes.

I have no personal knowledge of Dottie, however I believe this passage from "Child Molesters: A Behavioral  Guide" is valuable to understand that she fits the profile of a wife of a pedophile.

" When they do marry, pedophiles often marry either a strong, domineering woman or a weak, passive woman-child. In any case they will marry a woman who does not have high sexual expectations or needs. A woman married to a pedophile may not realize her husband is a pedophile, but she does know he has a “problem” – a sexual-performance problem. Because she may blame herself for this problem and because of the private nature of people’s sex lives, most wives will usually not reveal this information to an 

investigator;"

Information on the public record states Dottie was known as "Sarge" -- in other words, Sandusky selected a strong domineering woman who would be the perfect compliment to his childlike, goofy behavior.

Dottie testified that early in their marriage they tried to have children, but it didn't work out, so they became adoptive parents.  Interestingly enough, neither the prosecution or the defense inquired about the sexual relationship between Jerry and Dottie -- which would seem to be highly relevant in a case where someone is accused of being a pedophile.

Dottie and her other five children stood by Jerry at trial.  Matt Sandusky was originally supportive of Jerry but then turned and admitted he had been abused.  Dottie attributed Matt's accusations of abuse to dishonesty and bi-polar disorder.  She stated she never saw Jerry abuse a child and does not believe he is guilty.

Dr. Alycia Chambers

Dr. Chambers appears to be one of the few people who recognized what Sandusky was.  The others were her colleagues at the practice in which she worked (and perhaps Jerry Lauro and John Miller -- but they're not women).   According to a telephone interview I conducted with Dr. Chambers on October 12, 2012, she did the right thing - to an extent - and wrote a report on Sandusky's behavior and submitted it to DPW, CYS, and the University Park Police for the 1998 investigation.  During the interview, Dr. Chambers asked, "how did that other guy get in there?"  Meaning, how did Seasock end up interviewing Victim 6.  She went on to lament that she had been seeing Victim 6 for a period of time and for the DPW and CYS officials to send the child to a stranger - and a man - to discuss possible sexual abuse was a mistake.

She was 100% correct in her assessment.

However, if you want to discuss someone who "should have done more," perhaps Dr. Chambers might be that person.  Chambers knew that Sandusky's behavior fit the description of grooming. She also knew that the child was in The Second Mile and of Sandusky's association with that organization.

Therefore, why didn't Chambers "do more" after learning Sandusky was cleared?   I'm not suggesting that she go public or demand that the investigation be re-opened, but why not get "clearance" from the mother to release her report in a confidential manner to officials at The Second Mile, so that they could better monitor Sandusky's activities with children.

Sandra Spanier

I can state with near certainty that Sandra Spanier had no idea about 1998 because her husband, Graham, had no recollection of the incident.  And Dr. Spanier has a very good memory.

Dr. Spanier told Freeh's group, upon viewing the e-mails from 1998, that he had a vague recollection of the first and no recollection of the last.  The first e-mail was very general and didn't even mention Sandusky's name.

Graham Spanier did not see the second 1998 e-mail because he was out of the country when he received it and then he deleted it without reading it upon his return.  It was one e-mail in a group of several hundred that he would have reviewed upon return and, as was his practice, he would read the top e-mail in the chain and delete those of the same subject below it in the chronology.  At the time of the 1998 investigation, PSU was negotiatiing Sandusky's retirement, thus Spanier likely read the top e-mail about the retirement negotiations an deleted all others referencing Jerry Sandusky.

it is also highly unlikely that Graham informed her of the 2001incident.  Through this investigation, I learned that Spanier often worked 15 hours days and that he was not one to bring "work" home from the office.  Spanier's own recollection of the 2001 event is mostly of the 15 minute meeting with Tim and Gary, where he learned of the incident, was told it was "horsing around", and wasn't told the identity of the witness. 

Not a lot to discuss with his wife, even if he chose to do so and probably not the highlight of his day.

Karen Schultz

If I had to pick among the wives of the PSU officials who may have known about 1998, it would be Karen Schultz.   Her husband, Gary, received the reports about the investigation directly from police chief, Tom Harmon and Schultz knew more details, thus he had more to tell if he so chose.

However, Schultz's behavior in keeping the 1998 investigation's details confidential was evident in the e-mails he wrote to Curley -- and eventually Spanier (although Spanier never read it).  It is highly probable that Harmon advised Schultz that the investigation was a confidential matter at the outset.  Therefore, the probability is very low that he would tell his wife about something that could be potentially damaging to Jerry Sandusky -- who was a highly respected coach and pillar of the community (or at least appeared so).

Similarly, Schultz's handwritten note of 2/12/2001 (Exhibit 5C) is marked "Confidential."  Schultz consulted with then-PSU Counsel Wendell Courtney the very day he was informed of the incident.  It is highly probable that Courtney advised Schultz of the law about reporting and confidentiality.  And again, Sandusky remained a highly respected, pillar of the community, so it is unlikely that Schultz would have disclosed the investigation to his wife.

Linette Courtney

I have no reservations when I say Linette Courtney did not know about the 1998 incident.  That's because Wendell Courtney was unaware of that incident, as noted on the Errata Sheet to the Freeh Report:

"Corrected Text:  Courtney e-mails Schultz a newspaper story about the Sandusky charges and states:  "I was never aware that "Penn State police investigated inappropriate touching in a shower' in 1998."

This is not an insignificant point in terms of the confidentiality of the 1998 investigation and that Gary Schultz complied fully with the law in not disclosing the details of the investigation (Pa. 055 Section 3490.91).   
After the 1998 investigation was underway, Schultz could not disclose the information -- even to the PSU General Counsel. 

As for 2001, Courtney was informed of the alleged abuse incident on February 11, 2001, however, he was bound by attorney-client privilege from disclosing the information.  And again, to release unsubstantiated allegations against a pillar of the community, Sandusky, would not only have been inappropriate, but as Courtney well knew, could subject him to a defamation lawsuit.
One final set of corroborating evidence is that Linette Courtney served on the Corporate/State Board of Directors for The Second Mile from 2005 to 2008.  Most assuredly, had she known that Sandusky was involved in any abuse situation, she would not have volunteered to be a Director for The Second Mile Board.

Joan Coble

Joan was Gary's administrative assistant who was copied on one e-mail (Exhibit 5F, Subject: Confidential) between Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. The e-mail did not mention any names, nor did it contain any details about the investigation.

Melinda Curley

Melinda Curley would not have known the details about 1998. As evidenced by the e-mails, Schultz withheld the details of the investigation from Curley.  Curley got an initial heads up from Schultz of which we don't know the content, however, we can conclude it didn't make a great impression on Curley.  He didn't remember anything about 1998 in 2011.  Tim Curley got one update - which contained minimal information - during the investigation and was informed that it closed with no criminal charges. 

Some mention of the 2001 investigation may have been made by Tim to Melinda.  Curley was called to Paterno's house on a Sunday morning, which would be unusual.  When he returned, it is highly likely his wife asked him what the meeting was about and Curley may have given her a vague notion about some issue with a coach.  However, based on the vague description given to Paterno by McQueary, it is highly unlikely that he told Melinda that Sandusky was engaged in a sex act with a child.

Judith Dranov

Dr. Dranov was called to the McQueary home at approximately 9PM on a Friday night, February 9, 2001 and stayed there until about 11PM that night.  Upon arriving home, if Mrs. Dranov was still awake, it is likely she asked Dr. Dranov what he was doing at the McQueary's.  Given the business relationship between the two men, Dranov could have easily said it was a business discussion.  Or he could have told the truth and said the Mike witnessed something in the showers, but couldn't really say what he saw because it was out of his view.  Because Dranov's testimony clearly states that Mike couldn't articulate what he saw to him, it is likely that he gave his wife the same description of the event.  

Anne McQueary

Mike McQueary admitted during trial testimony that he told his family members about the incident.  On page 213 of the trial transcript, it states: "My family over time came to know what I had witnessed -- but again I'm saying over time." 

McQueary's family knew (over time) he witnessed an "extremely sexual" act between Sandusky and a young boy and none of them -- not even Anne McQueary, thought they should do something (like report it) to prevent Sandusky from committing other crimes like the one Mike allegedly described?     Mike said no one at PSU told him to keep it quiet, so was there a "family pact" to keep this secret?

This is an extremely troubling discovery.  Why would the McQueary family protect a pedophile?

Barbara McQueary

Again, Mike McQueary admitted at the trial that he had told his girlfriend at the time about the details. It is not clear if his current (now estranged) wife was his girlfriend in 2001, however, his statement about telling his family likely covers his wife.  Therefore, his wife was informed, at some point, that Mike witnessed Sandusky engaged in an extremely sexual act with a child, but didn't inform anyone or go to the authorities.

Perhaps the bond between husband, wife, and the family prevented the women (and the men) that knew from coming forward. 

Who Else?

While McQueary testified that he didn't tell the guys in the building or his buddies about what he observed, we know that testimony is false.

McQueary told an undisclosed number of people in an internet chat room.  And the Freeh Report footnote on page 88 states he told an equipment manager about the incident.

So the group that was told about the 2001 incident is larger than we know, but to get to the bottom of what McQueary said, it is likely you'd have to find someone with no attachment or bond to McQueary or any of the other witnesses/individuals involved.

And I believe the best source to provide that information is noted on page 55 of "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Guide."

Find an ex-wife or an ex-girlfriend.

Three vs. Ten: Unequal Justice Under the Law

If There Was A Cover-Up of Jerry Sandusky's Crimes, Then Why Weren’t All TEN Conspirators Charged and Held Accountable?
by
Eileen Morgan

By 2001, Jerry Sandusky had retired from Penn State to work full time at his charitable youth foundation, The Second Mile.  Sandusky founded The Second Mile in 1977 to help underprivileged youth reach their full potential.  On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse.

On July 12, 2012, Louis Freeh declared in his report that the senior officials at Penn State conspired to cover-up Jerry Sandusky’s child molestation to avoid bad publicity.  A ‘cover-up’ is defined as ‘a concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public.’  

Penn State’s culpability in the Jerry Sandusky Sex Scandal precariously pivots on the 2001 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary.  We know that Mike McQueary walked into a locker room on an evening in February, 2001 and saw Sandusky alone in a shower with a young boy from The Second Mile.  Mike McQueary, who was upset by what he "saw," called his father, John McQueary, to convey what he just witnessed.  His father did not instruct Mike to call the police but rather to ‘come home.’ 

The McQuearys and Dr. Dranov Discuss the Incident

Mike then came home and spoke again to his father and family friend, Dr. Dranov, about what he had seen just moments earlier.  John McQueary was a physician assistant and CEO of a physician’s practice.  In their respective professional positions, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov were mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse.  If they failed to report suspected child abuse they would face criminal charges and jail time.  Dr. Dranov testified that on the night in question he asked Mike, “What did you see?”  Mike kept going back to the sounds. Dr. Dranov repeated the question, THREE times in total, “Mike, What did you see?”  But Mike kept going back to the sounds.  Dr. Dranov also testified that the only visual account Mike relayed was that he saw ‘a boy look around, made eye contact, and then an arm pulled him back.  Mike looked again and saw Sandusky walking out of the shower.’  Because Dr. Dranov was a mandatory reporter, his repeated questioning was to clarify if a crime had been committed so that he would know whether or not to call the police and report Sandusky’s crime as mandated by law. 

Mike McQueary, the elder McQueary, nor Dr. Dranov called the police that night.  There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no crime witnessed or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

The Report to PSU Officials

The following morning, at the insistence of the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov, Mike McQueary went to the home of Joe Paterno to tell Paterno what he had seen the night before.  Paterno then relayed the information to his superiors, Tim Curley-Penn State Athletic Director, and Gary Schultz-Penn State VP of Business & Finance, who oversaw the University Park Police, and they, in turn, relayed the information to Penn State President Graham Spanier.  Curley and Schultz then met with McQueary to hear the account directly from him.    Based on the information and details from McQueary, the three officials (Curley, Schultz and Spanier) agreed that Curley should report McQueary’s account to Sandusky’s employer, The Second Mile.  Paterno, Curley, Schultz, nor Spanier called the police. 

There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no criminal activity reported to them by the witness or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

The Second Mile Gets The Report

The Second Mile’s Executive Director,  Jack Raykovitz, a licensed psychologist and mandatory reporter who was responsible for the children at the organization, took the information from Curley and discussed it with two board members of The Second Mile and the three of them decided it was a non-incident.  Raykovitz nor the other two board members called the police. 

There are only two possible reasons: 1) There was no criminal activity reported to them by the hearsay witness or 2) They wanted to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse.

Chart of 2001 Sandusky Shower Incident

McQueary- Eyewitness
                John McQueary – hearsay witness
                Dr. Dranov – hearsay witness
                Joe Paterno – hearsay witness
                Tim Curley – hearsay witness
                Gary Schultz – hearsay witness

Graham Spanier – hearsay witness (once removed from McQueary)

Jack Rakovitz-2nd Mile CEO – hearsay witness (once removed from McQueary)
                          
          Second Mile Board Member #1 – hearsay witness (twice removed from McQueary)

          Second Mile Board Member #2 – hearsay witness (twice removed from McQueary)

In all, 10 men were directly or indirectly aware of the 2001 incident witnessed by Mike McQueary.

Was This A Cover-Up?

The actions/testimony of all the hearsay witnesses was identical.

If there was a cover-up to conceal Sandusky’s crimes, then they would necessarily be acting in concert.  John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier testified that no criminal sexual act between Sandusky and the child was reported to them by Mike McQueary.  None of these men called the police when the incident was reported to them and their testimony validates why they did not call the police. 

If there was a cover-up, there would have been an effort to conceal the incident.  However, the facts show that each man McQueary talked to reported the incident to other individuals up the chain of command. 

If John McQueary and Dr. Dranov were covering up for Sandusky’s crimes, then they would never have told Mike to report the incident to Paterno. 

If Paterno wanted to cover-up for Sandusky’s crimes, then he would not have reported it to Curley and Schultz.  Not only did the hearsay witnesses not conceal the information, but Curley reported it outside the university to the CEO of The Second Mile.  If the Penn State Officials were concealing Sandusky’s crimes they most definitely would NOT have reported the incident to additional people, let alone The Second Mile.  To share this information with other individuals outside of their circle would have relinquished control of their cover-up putting them at high risk of being exposed.  The PSU officials’ actions were the antithesis of the actions of a cover-up.  In addition, McQueary testified that he told other individuals about the incident and that he was never told by any of his superiors not to tell others.  “Neither Curley nor Schultz ever told me not to talk about this to others.  Neither of them made any effort to prevent me from talking to anyone in the world.”

Since the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov are mandatory reporters and did not report the incident, one can only assume that they believed Mike did not witness child sex abuse by Sandusky.  Each of the men, Mike McQueary, John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Schultz, Curley and Spanier, were concerned that Sandusky was showering alone with a child and they each reported it to a person up the chain of command they thought would best handle the situation given the information and facts they had at the time.  Sandusky was confronted about the incident and told that it was inappropriate to shower with children.

So, what was the reason why the eyewitness, along with the other nine hearsay witnesses, did not call the police?  Were the men conspiring to conceal Sandusky’s child sex abuse? 

The preponderance of evidence clearly says NO.  The reason no one called the police was because no crime was witnessed by Mike McQueary.  The evidence, actions and testimony of all the individuals involved clearly prove that there was no effort to conceal the 2001 shower incident, at least up to the point that The Second Mile was informed. 

The problem with the State’s case against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, is that neither John McQueary nor Dr. Dranov has been charged with perjury, failure to report, or conspiracy.  This can only mean that the State believes their testimony to be credible and true.  If Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier acted in the same manner as the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov (not calling the police) and testified similarly as the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov regarding McQueary’s account, then why has Paterno been blamed and why have Curley, Schultz, and Spanier been charged with perjury, child endangerment, and conspiracy, yet John McQueary and Dr. Dranov have not? 

All six men received the same account from McQueary.  If there was a conspiracy to cover-up then ALL the men were in collusion and should be held accountable.  Since the State does not believe John McQueary or Dr. Dranov broke the law, then they certainly should not be charging Curley, Schultz and Spanier with breaking the law. 

Either all the men broke the law and are at fault or none of them are at fault.  This is an egregious injustice by the state of Pennsylvania.  The Attorney General’s haphazard methods of applying the law in this case must be exposed.

Finally, Mike McQueary filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against Penn State in October, 2012.  In that lawsuit there are no claims by McQueary that he was forced to conspire with Paterno, Curley, Schultz or Spanier to conceal Sandusky’s child abuse crimes.  Certainly McQueary would have filed that charge in his lawsuit to assure a victory and maximum payout.  This clearly proves, in addition to the other evidence, that there was no such concealment by Penn State officials to cover-up for Jerry Sandusky’s crimes as alleged by Louis Freeh’s Report.