Second Mile Sandusky Scandal

Sunday, February 12, 2017 PSU’s appeal of the McQueary verdict alleges judicial bias

2025-01-24T13:21:00.004-05:00

Sunday, February 12

PSU’s appeal of the McQueary verdict alleges judicial bias

PSU’s legal team says what should have been said all along – its employees were not legally required to report Sandusky in 2001.

Ray Blehar

Penn State University’s (PSU) legal counsel, after over six years of avoidance and obfuscation, finally stood up for itself and called out the court for its (continuing) bias against the University. For many of PSU’s loyal alumni, the big news was that PSU finally argued that former officials Graham Spanier, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz were not mandated reporters under the child abuse reporting statute in 2001.

That is one among many of the appeal issues – although it one of the most important for setting the record straight -- and outing Pennsylvania's corrupt legal system.

The recent filings cite a number of instances in which Judge Thomas Gavin was unfair in his rulings and was biased in favor of former PSU assistant football coach, Michael McQueary.

Pre-Trial Bias

The bias began before the trial got underway.

During the pre-trial discussion immediately before the first day of testimony, Judge Thomas Gavin, who was specially selected to preside over the case, made a statement that revealed his bias toward McQueary.

Judge Gavin apparently believed that Mike told "X,Y, and Z" to Curley and Schultz and also apparently had to be living under a rock to not know the “flip side.”

From the release of the November 2011 grand jury presentment and forward, top PSU officials, including Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley, testified that McQueary did not communicate that any type of sexual activity (i.e., X, Y, and Z) had occurred in the shower.

This was reported many, many times in the media.

But if that wasn’t enough, how could it be possible that Judge Gavin was unaware that Curley and Schultz were facing charges of perjury for stating their disagreement that McQueary told them about a sexual encounter?

And there was even more to the other side of the story.

Dr. Jonathan Dranov also confirmed (on multiple occasions) that McQueary could not articulate what he saw – only what he thought he heard. This received considerable media attention about one month after the presentment was released. See below, my emphasis added:

However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source.

Dr. Dranov’s testimony at the Sandusky trial also received similar media attention.

On Wednesday, Dr. Jonathan Dranov testified that Mike McQueary did not tell him specifically that he saw an actual sexual encounter between Sandusky and one of the alleged victims in the shower incident.

For the Judge to believe that there was no “flip side” or alternative to Mike’s story strains credulity.

That said, if the Judge wanted to hear the “flip side,” then his pre-trial decision to not render a stay in the case until the criminal trials of Curley and Schultz concluded was certainly not in furtherance of finding out.

Judge Gavin’s only rationale for moving forward with the McQueary case was because he wanted to get it over with.

But don't rule out ulterior motives.

Trial Bias

The failure of the judge to grant a stay also resulted in another bias being introduced.

Curley and Schultz were not going to be useful witnesses if they were forced to appear at the McQueary trial because of their still pending criminal proceedings. If they had appeared, they would have invoked the Fifth Amendment on every question.

Curley and Schultz were not sued by McQueary, thus they were non-parties to the lawsuit and not under the control of PSU.

Judge Gavin instructed the jury that they could consider an adverse inference to questions that would have been directed at Curley and Schultz. This is typically not exercised in the cases of non-parties in which the defendant has no control. But Gavin went down that road anyway.

The PSU appeal similarly held that Judge Gavin threatened to use adverse interpretations in situations where witnesses, such as Graham Spanier, were advised to invoke attorney-client privilege.

While PSU didn’t state this in the appeal, those attending the trial and/or who have read the transcripts know that Judge Gavin overruled nearly all – if not all – of the objections by PSU’s attorneys.

Even when fairness dictated that PSU objections be granted so that they were provided with the same opportunities to present evidence as the plaintiff.

Trial Bias Impacting Defamation Decision

In the most obvious display of bias, Judge Gavin would not allow PSU attorneys to introduce media accounts that were published in the immediate aftermath of the presentment that painted McQueary in a negative light (i.e., he was a coward, deserved to die, etc.). Judge Gavin considered these accounts to be hearsay, even though PSU didn’t offer them as the truth. Rather, they were offered as examples of defamatory statements that were made public after the presentment.

McQueary alleged that he was defamed (apparently solely) by then President Graham Spanier’s statement that gave “unconditional support” to Curley and Schultz.

While those of us living in the real world know that it was the Attorney General’s grand jury presentment that painted an unknown graduate assistant as the world’s biggest coward and that the media accounts that defamed (?) McQueary had their roots in the presentment.

Later in the trial, however, the Judge reversed his “hearsay” ruling and let McQueary’s legal team introduce blogposts and news accounts to show the “result” of Spanier’s alleged defamatory statement.

The most amazing thing about the defamation verdict is that the jury somehow ignored the fact that PSU had begun drafting the statement in late October – before there was a grand jury presentment and before Spanier and the public knew of McQueary’s involvement.

It appears that the jury decided this case on sympathy – not facts.

Beyond Bias – An Advocate for the Plaintiff

However, what went beyond bias was when Judge Gavin started acting as if he was part of the McQueary legal team – and he did it on two occasions.

In the first instance, Judge Gavin asked former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach about the construction and approval of a grand jury presentment. Eshbach’s response was that it was submitted to and then reviewed by a judge for approval.

To the unwitting jurors, this explanation likely caused them to put immense faith into the words and descriptions used in the November 2011 presentment.

It is likely that few of them knew that the supervising grand jury judge, Barry Feudale, had been forced to step down for misconduct and that he later leaked secret information to the press.

Next, in one of the biggest errors in the case, Gavin introduced the fallacious argument that (while instructing the jury) that Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were mandated reporters in 2001. The judge concluded that the men were mandated reporters based on Spanier's alleged statement (in an unauthenticated email) of "becoming vulnerable for not reporting."

To be clear, Judge Gavin either didn't bother to check the law or simply ignored it to press an agenda.

Gavin's conclusion that PSU officials were mandated reporters was not based on the law.

Given what has occurred over the last six years, it was likely the latter. This case and other cases (e.g., Monsignor Lynn, Kathleen Kane, Porngate, etc.) have destroyed the idea that there is any integrity at all in Pennsylvania's criminal justice and legal systems.

As such, it would be folly to try to predict the success or failure of PSU's appeal.

Doing the Right Thing

At the time of the McQueary trial, the failure to report charge was still pending and was likely the reason why PSU attorneys did not bring up the misapplication of the law then.

Now that the charge has been dismissed, it appears that PSU’s legal team has finally gotten permission to start revealing some of the long known truths of this case in an attempt to win a court case.

It is truly sad that it took over six years to get to this moment.

This entire scandal could have been defused if the University’s and the Board of Trustee’s (BOT) legal teams had actually used the law to decide what to do in response to the (bogus) charges.

In short, they would have stuck to Spanier’s November 5th statement that the charges against Tim and Gary were “groundless.”

The reasons that didn’t happen in November 2011 are many.

Among the key reasons PSU threw its own under the bus rather than using the law to defend itself were:

1) the child abuse reporting law becoming crystal clear to the public and putting an end to the #FakeNews about PSU's responsibility;

2) the Attorney General’s office would have been exposed for its selective prosecution of Curley and Schultz; and,

3) the public learning that officials at The Second Mile were legally responsible to make a report in 2001.

Mounds of evidence over the last five years strongly indicates that people in Harrisburg, people in judge’s robes, and an inner circle of members of the PSU Board of Trustees were making sure none of those things happened.

The ten million dollar question is why were these politicos, judges, and “rotten apple” BOT members protecting The Second Mile and letting PSU get saddled with the blame and the bills?

It’s a question that many PSU alums would like new Attorney General Josh Shapiro to take a stab at answering.

7 comments:

bsharpe3February 12, 2017 at 10:12 AM
Thanks again, Ray for the enlightenment. This has probably already been asked, but why did Penn State make the victims who recieved a payment sign something that they will not turn around and sue TSM? Thanks.
Reply
Replies
Carole VailFebruary 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM
Thanks for pulling all of this together Ray. This entire fiasco is so confusing that it takes someone like you with a full understanding of the facts and the ability to sort them out for the rest of us. Your tenacity and passion are inspiring.
Reply
Dorothy ImbodyFebruary 12, 2017 at 2:19 PM
Thanks Ray. What are the odds that Shapiro will look into this? And I don't have a feel if he's a good guy or just another corrupt PA old boy.
Reply
Replies
Tim BertonFebruary 12, 2017 at 9:59 PM
Ray - Great job as usual. Isn't it more like the quarter billion dollar question, rather than just ten million?

What I don't understand is why the defense did not call Tom Corbett, Frank Noonan and sports pundits critical of McQueary to testify when the judge ruled media reports inadmissible.

Both disparaged Corbett and Noonan disparaged McQueary by name. They could have even shown excerpts from the Meet the Press episode when Governor Tom Corbett said that McQueary "met the minimum obligation of reporting it up and--but did not, in my opinion, meet a moral obligation that all of us would have."

On Nv. 9, 2011, Tom Loughrey of BleacherReport.com wrote that McQueary "could be considered an accessory to rape." and that

"McQueary is a coward. If he feared for his job on that day, he should fear for more than that in the coming days."

I also don't understand why the defense did not bring up McQueary's addiction as disqualifying to him obtaining a college coaching position. McQueary never disputed the ESPN report that he gambled on college football games, even some he played in.
Reply
Replies

Monday, October 9, 2017 - Correcting the Record: Part 1: McQueary's 2001 Eye-witness Report

2025-01-23T12:35:00.001-05:00

Monday, October 9

Correcting the Record: Part 1: McQueary's 2001 Eye-witness Report

Most of the publics' knowledge of the Sandusky scandal was obtained from media reports that were based on lies propagated by government officials, the NCAA, and former FBI Director Louis Freeh. There's so many lies out there that it will take a series of posts to debunk them all.

By
Ray Blehar

FALSE

McQueary reported a rape to Joe Paterno and other Penn State officials in 2001.

THE TRUTH

McQueary did not witness nor did he report a rape to anyone in 2001.

ORIGIN OF THE LIE

The Sandusky grand jury presentment of November 4. 2011 provided a misleading account of what eye witness Michael McQueary reported to Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident. Rather than stating explicitly what McQueary reported, it stated he reported "what he had seen" which led the media and the public to erroneously conclude the explicit details were reported to Paterno.

EVIDENCE REFUTING THE LIE

1. The eye witness, Mike McQueary, took issue with the accuracy of the statement in the grand jury presentment. On November 10, 2011, he sent this email to Office of Attorney General (OAG) prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach and Agent Anthony Sassano -- telling them he felt his "words were slightly twisted."

2. In that same email to the OAG, McQueary gave a very equivocating and uncertain statement regarding "whatever it was" that he observed in the locker room.

3. On November 6th, Joe Paterno issued a statement in an attempt to clarify what was reported to him (my emphasis added).

"As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."

4. On December 16, 2011, a little over one month after the presentment was released, McQueary clarified (under cross-examination) that he never used the terms "anal or rape in this since day one." To be absolutely clear, he did not use those terms with his father, John McQueary, when making the phone call immediately after witnessing the incident, with his father's business partner, Dr. Jonathon Dranov within hours of the incident, with Joe Paterno the morning after, and with then Penn State University officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz approximately ten days later.

And:

5. On June 12, 2012, McQueary testified that he could not see "insertion" or "genitals," but described the positioning as "extremely, extremely close as you could be."

6. On June 22, 2012, the jury correctly found that Jerry Sandusky was not guilty of Count 7: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (IDSI) related to the alleged rape witnessed by McQueary. The media made very little of the acquittal for the alleged crime that created the outrage against Paterno and Penn State.

7. Subsequent testimony in numerous proceedings from 2011 through 2017 by John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Curley, and Schultz confirmed that no explicitly sexual terms were used by McQueary when he described what he actually saw.

THE MEDIA IGNORED THE EVIDENCE

8 . After McQueary testified (on December 16, 2011) to not providing explicit details in his report to Paterno and others, the New York Times reported the opposite. See below:

"By PETER DURANTINEDEC. 16, 2011

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A Penn State assistant football coach testified Friday that in 2002 he saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy and that he reported it, in graphic detail, to Coach Joe Paterno and two senior Penn State University officials."

9. At the conclusion of the Sandusky trial, Sara Ganim made only a passing comment about the acquittal on the allegation that caused the removal of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier and formed the basis of her Pulitzer prize winning stories on the "Penn State sex scandal." In total, the Harrisburg Patriot News ran nine stories on the verdicts and Ganim's was the only one to (briefly) mention that not guilty verdict.

10. After Sandusky's sentencing in October 2012, the New York Times incorrectly reported that McQueary testified that Sandusky sodomized Victim 2 -- even though he had not done so. The Times column also failed to mention Sandusky was acquitted of sodomizing the boy.

"One of Mr. Sandusky’s victims was a young boy who was sodomized by Mr. Sandusky in the Penn State football shower room, according to testimony by Mike McQueary, a former assistant coach."

SUMMARY

The false allegation that McQueary witnessed a rape and reported it to PSU officials originated with the Pennsylvania OAG and the media stuck to that narrative even though it was refuted by the evidence in the case and the verdict of the Sandusky jury.

Next...Part 2: "The rapes of those boys occurred in the Lasch Building."

Sunday, February 5, 2017 - What the jury must decide for EWOC charge.

2025-01-23T12:33:00.003-05:00

Sunday, February 5

What the jury must decide for EWOC charge.

While there were many irregularities in the Sandusky trial, Judge Cleland's instructions on the EWOC charge wasn't one of them.

By
Ray Blehar

The case of the PSU 3 has come down to the charges of Endangering the Welfare of a Child (EWOC) and related conspiracy.

If Judge Boccabella instructs the jury in the same manner as Judge Cleland, the outcome should bode well for the defendants -- if the jurors follow the letter of the law.

In the Sandusky case, Cleland instructed the jurors on the four elements that had to be met for EWOC. In my previous, blog I called it a three-prong test -- failing to include the fourth requirement that a child must be involved.

Here were Cleland's instructions.

First, he emphasized the reasonable doubt standard for all four elements.

ELEMENT 1

Judge Cleland explains the violation of the duty of care.

In the case of the PSU 3, the Commonwealth must prove -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- the PSU officials were in a supervisory capacity over Sandusky (or had a direct duty of care -- see Element 4).

Also, as noted in the February 1st blogpost, the question comes down to the definition of supervision.

The Commonwealth's argument was/is that PSU supervised Sandusky because of his emeritus status, his receipt of retirement benefits and perquisites, and that his charitable work at The Second Mile (TSM) was a benefit to the University.

The defense will counter showing that Sandusky was not under the supervision of PSU officials, to possibly including the following evidence:

-- The SERS decision;
-- Sandusky's retirement records from PSU;
-- The Second Mile's (TSM's) tax returns (IRS 990s);
-- Sandusky's tax returns;
-- Testimony of other emeritus professors; and,
-- PSU's decision to notify TSM because they were Sandusky's employer.

ELEMENT 2

Element number two is that the PSU 3 engaged in a course of conduct that knowingly endangered children.

PSU officials reported the 2001 incident to Dr. Jack Raykovitz, who was a licensed psychologist, a mandated reporter, and in a supervisory capacity over Sandusky.

PSU officials had every reason to believe that Raykovitz had the training and experience to decide the necessary action to properly decide what to do about Sandusky showering with children.

The defense could also argue that PSU officials were told that the act of showering and hugging TWO boys was not criminal nor did it constitute child abuse at the close of the 1998 investigation. As such, a similar incident three years later did not set off alarm bells.

The prosecution will undoubtedly point to the February 27th email and Spanier's purported statement that PSU might become "vulnerable" if an incident recurs.

In response, the defense should challenge the authenticity of the email and request the Commonwealth provide the exact date the email was recovered and the chain of custody from recovery to the courtroom.

This would cause quite an uproar, but the fact of the matter is the Commonwealth has never established the exact date PSU turned this email over to the OAG -- and the Moulton Report stated that a thumb drive of PSU emails were turned over in 2011.

If the email is authentic, the Commonwealth should not object to this request and produce the information. If the Commonwealth objects, then it is almost certain that the email was subjected to tampering.

Of course, the prosecution will also attempt to use Mike McQueary's (uncorroborated) report as evidence that PSU officials were aware that a sexual act had taken place.

The preponderance of evidence about the 2001 report indicates that McQueary did not inform anyone of a crime nor did he provide specific details. Also, the credibility of witness McQueary will come under extreme scrutiny.

It will be interesting to see if any new evidence rears its head during the cross-examination of McQueary.

ELEMENT 3

Element number three is that Sandusky was supervising the child.

Interestingly, the Commonwealth never established the identity of the victim in the 2001 incident, thus it is possible to argue that this element was not met in that instance.

The Commonwealth cannot absolutely prove that Sandusky had a duty of care to the unknown child because of parenthood or guardianship. Nor can it absolutely prove that Sandusky was supervising the child without some sort of permission slip or official documentation.

It is my opinion that the latter case is one of the reasons the Commonwealth did not try very hard to identify a victim in the 2001 incident.

By not doing so, the Commonwealth had a legal rationale -- albeit a very weak one -- for not charging TSM officials Bruce Heim and Jack Raykovitz (and possibly others) with failure to report and/or endangering the welfare of children.

If that argument applied to TSM officials, it would seemingly apply to PSU officials.

For the record, the jury found Sandusky guilty of EWOC for unknown Victims 2 and 8, likely based on his course of conduct.

ELEMENT 4

Element number four is that the individual was a child under the age of 18.

Mike McQueary testified that he saw a boy between the ages of 10 and 13 in the locker room with Sandusky. Sandusky's course of conduct also provides proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was in the locker room with a child.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence, a jury should conclude that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof on elements 1 and 2 -- and possibly 3, resulting in a not-guilty verdict for EWOC.

Posted by Ray Blehar at 10:51 AM
Email This BlogThis!Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest
Labels: Boccabella, duty of care, endangering, EWOC, Judge Cleland, Jury, PSU 3, Sandusky, statue, supervision

FTR Charges Against PSU 3 Dropped, But Sham Case Rolls On (Feb 1, 2017)

2025-01-23T12:28:00.003-05:00

Wednesday, February 1

FTR Charges Against PSU 3 Dropped, But Sham Case Rolls On

Judge Boccabella’s ruling is part of the Commonwealth’s continued effort to deflect attention away from problems in PA’s child protection system

Ray Blehar

In a two page ruling that was lacking much in the way of rationales, Senior Judge John Boccabella dismissed the Failure To Report (FTR) charges against former Penn State University (PSU) officials Graham Spanier, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz while (literally) inexplicably carrying over the charges of Endangering the Welfare of Children (EWOC) and Conspiracy over for court.

This case dragged on for five years under a number of false arguments that PSU officials had failed to report Jerry Sandusky to the authorities after a report of inappropriate behavior in 2001.

FALSE ARGUMENTS

The statute in effect at the time was very clear that PSU officials were not among the enumerated mandatory reporters. Section 6303 of the statute clearly stated that PSU officials were not “school employees” because of the administrative nature of their jobs and the fact that they did not come in contact with children. Regardless, the Commonwealth argued that PSU was a school and the head of the school was required to report the incident – but inexplicably charged the Athletic Director and the VP for Finance and Business with not reporting -- while not charging then PSU President Graham Spanier (in 2011).

Finally, the prosecutors knowingly lied about the date of the incident – moving it ahead one year -- in order to make a very tortured argument that it was covered under the revised 2007 statute.

Judge Boccabella didn’t buy the tortured argument that attempted to extend the statute of limitations to 2011 and dismissed the FTR charges.

However, Boccabella inexplicably ruled that even though PSU officials could not be tried for FTR, they could be tried for EWOC. In order to successfully prosecute EWOC, the Commonwealth must prove a three-pronged criteria:

1. PSU officials were supervising the children or providing supervision of the person providing care of the child and knowingly endangered the welfare of the children.

2. PSU officials were covered under number 1 (above) and interfered with the report of child abuse.

3. PSU officials were persons other than a parent or guardian of the child.

Criterion 1 has already been undermined by a ruling from the State Education Retirement System (SERS) that concluded Sandusky was retired from PSU in 1998.

As such, PSU officials had no supervisory over Sandusky in 2001.

Nevertheless, in the SERS case and in the criminal case, the Commonwealth argued that Sandusky’s retirement perquisites (email account, access to campus, an office, complimentary football tickets, etc.) were proof that he was a PSU employee and under administrative control of PSU.

Utter nonsense.

There are only two things for sure in this world – death and taxes. It would appear that Sandusky’s tax returns from 2001 and forward would close the door on this ridiculous argument (if logic and the law ever actually becomes part of this case).

CORRUPTION CONTINUES

But today’s ruling was further evidence that the corrupt system in PA is alive and well. In order for “bad news” to have the least impact, it is often released on a Friday night of a Holiday weekend so that few will notice.

It was no coincidence that this ruling was released on major college football’s national letter of intent day. ESPN and the rest of the college football isn’t paying attention to the legal realm today.

The Sandusky scandal never would have become a sports story if not for the unholy alliance between the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, the Harrisburg Patriot News, and a small group of PSU trustees.

Turning the Sandusky scandal into a PSU sports scandal grabbed national headlines and deflected the blame away from those who were truly responsible for identifying the signs of child sexual victimization and taking the necessary steps to prevent Sandusky’s access to children.

Those who have studied the evidence in this case know that the case has been built on a series of lies, various forms of tampering, and evidentiary omissions that continue to persist. In short, it is an extreme case of prosecutorial misconduct that has been coined “Duke Lacrosse on Steroids.”

It is highly unlikely that new Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Josh Shapiro has any inkling about what really transpired in the investigation and court proceedings and only knows what he’s read in the biased news accounts – or has been told by the holdovers from the former Corbett/Ryan/Kelly regime.

Shapiro received praise by the media for his edict to have AG office employees sign a code of conduct. Unfortunately for Shapiro and the Commonwealth, some of the individuals who signed that oath are corrupt, unethical, and seemingly have no qualms about endangering the welfare of ALL of Pennsylvania’s children.

These prosecutors ignored and twisted the law on many occasions – Shapiro’s new code of conduct isn’t going to stop their misconduct.

The bottom line here is that if the truth about the Sandusky investigation got out, it would likely be cause of immediate appeals in the Bonusgate and Computergate cases.

These were cases built on trumped up, phony evidence used to obtain plea deals.

In the case of the PSU 3, those plea deal tactics didn’t work and now the Commonwealth’s case is left hanging by a shred – enough to keep the deflection and child endangerment going for the next few years (if this case goes the way of the Monsignor Lynn case).

WHAT'S NEXT?

When Shapiro was sworn in he stated:

"And, I won't be afraid to stand up to anyone--whether it's the President of the United

States, a multi-national corporation, or someone on the street corner."

Will Shapiro let Pennsylvania’s state of lawlessness and blame-shifting that has been coming from his office -- and their media accomplices -- to continue?

Or will Josh Shapiro have the courage to stop this sham case, quit reading media coverage about the Sandusky case, and look at the evidence of who really failed to protect the children?

Email to Ron Cook: Sportswriters are out of their league

2016-05-11T02:14:00.002-04:00

Ron Cook's column put forth the unqualified opinion that we can never corroborate allegations that Paterno was told of things because of his passing. I set him straight about verifying victim stories and a host of other topics. Cook did not respond.

By
Ray Blehar

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ray Blehar <rayblehar@xxxxx.com>
To: "rcook@post-gazette.com" <rcook@post-gazette.com>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 1:06 PM
Subject: Sportswriters are out of their league on weighing validity of complaints

Dear Ron,

I've read several columns by sportswriters who seem to uniformly state that we can never know the validity of the recent allegations.

Those conclusions are categorically incorrect.

The claims of victims are routinely evaluated and assessed by investigators and that's how charges are determined. Victims exaggerate what happened to them and they also down play their victimization. Seasoned investigators can separate fact from fiction.

In the case of the 1971 case you referenced, it categorically falls into the category of fiction. The story does not fit Sandusky's modus operandi as a molester who BEFRIENDED pre-teen boys and groomed them over a period of years.

Given the publicity surrounding the Sandusky case, it is unfathomable that ANYONE, let alone news reporters, could believe this allegation had any merit.

As a responsible journalist, you should have recognized this story as false immediately.

On Sunday, PSU President Barron told the public that there is NO EVIDENCE to support these allegations. As it turned out, $93M in settlements were paid without conducting the minimum amount of fact checking.

Similarly, the Board accepted the Freeh Report without review, then accepted $60M in fines.

If you notice, I've yet to mention Joe Paterno's name because NONE of this is even about Joe Paterno.

PSU Alumni are tired of being labeled as Paterno loyalists because WE DEMAND that our Trustees be responsible in decision making.

Finally, I am offended that at the end of the column, you paid LIP SERVICE to the victims and discuss their pain. I won't presume to know whether or not you have suffered abuse, however, it seems that like most other sportswriters you have very little knowledge of the LAW and how child protection is supposed to work in Pennsylvania.

Since August 2012, the PSU alumni have made it very clear about the failures of the state government to stop Sandusky in 1998 and in 2009, when there was ample evidence to do so.

We were told we were shifting blame.

Shifting blame? The people who shifted the blame happened to be the prosecutors in the Attorney General's office.

The individuals from DPW and CYS, who were paid with our tax dollars to protect children, were informed of dozens of signs of CSA (detailed in the Freeh Report) should have determined that Sandusky was a danger to children. Instead, they cleared him and informed Penn State that he did nothing wrong.

Sandusky was allowed to adopt six kids and he fostered many others. These actions were also approved by the same people who cleared Sandusky in 1998.

He abused some of those children too.

What should have been a case about how the system failed to protect kids from Sandusky became a story about how PSU officials dealt with a single complaint in 2001 -- that was IN FACT, reported outside the University to, AGAIN, individuals who were supposed to be protecting children.

Rather than putting the focus where it should be -- on fixing the system that failed these kids -- the focus has been on vilifying a handful of men who, under the law, did everything correctly.

It was not these men's job to determine what Sandusky was or to make sure he didn't access children. The abuse that continued after 2001 -- all of it off of the PSU campus -- could have been prevented if the individuals at The Second Mile, who were informed about Sandusky by Penn State, had done their job to not allow him to have unsupervised, one on one contact with children.

Don't feel sorry for the victims or pretend to know what pain they suffered. Not all victims respond in the same manner. Many move on from the abuse to lead very productive lives.

If you want to do something, then help us make sure that the NEXT kid doesn't get abused.

Write a column about how the system failed and how you (and other writers) were too focused on a coaching icon to bother to read the details of the Freeh Report and see the real failures in this scandal. Those failures continue as I write this.

Joe Paterno was man enough to admit that "with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

There's still time to do more, Ron.

Please help protect the next child from abuse.

Sincerely,

Ray Blehar

PSU Claim Payment (and other) Malfeasance

2016-05-10T00:59:00.001-04:00

The evidence timeline reveals that a small group of trustees, led by Ira Lubert, used the settlement process as part of the costly scheme to convict PSU in the court of public opinion.

By
Ray Blehar

There is a lot of confusion over the latest Penn State University Board of Trustees (PSU BOT) insurance debacle and misdirected anger at PSU's insurer (the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Insurance Company) about the release of uncorroborated claimant information.

Make no mistake, the people at fault for this debacle are former PSU President Rodney Erickson and the PSU BOT's Legal and Compliance Committee. However, the settlement scheme was just one cog in the wheel of an orchestrated effort to convict PSU in the court of public opinion.

The timeline, as usual, tells the story.

Rolling Out the Red Carpet For Lawsuits
After (then) PSU President Graham Spanier attempted to defend the University from the baseless allegations of a failure to report Sandusky, he was removed and the BOT began a series of actions to convince the public of the culpability of PSU officials in the Sandusky matter.

Nov. 4, 2011: Sandusky charges were announced.

Nov. 9, 2011: The PSU BOT announced removal of Spanier and Paterno, leading public to believe PSU officials were guilty of a cover-up. No vote was held prior to announcement of their removals.

Nov 11, 2011: Then interim (puppet) President Rodney Erickson's 5-Point Promise impled that PSU had a culture that failed to do the right thing and he committed to providing support to the victims.

Awareness of "Hole" of Coverage
Upon receiving the first lawsuit, PSU learns that the policies in effect during the time period when most of the (then) alleged abuse occurred do not cover "abuse and molestation"

Nov. 30th, 2011, John Doe A filed a civil lawsuit against The Second Mile and Penn State for his alleged abuse suffered from 1992 through 1996.

Jan. 6, 2012: PSU filed a claim with PMA for coverage under its comprehensive and commercial general liability (CGL) policy.

Jan 30, 2012: PMA issued a reservation of rights letter denying coverage under the CGL policy because of its "abuse and molestation" exclusion in effect after 1992. In addition, PSU policies have "intentional acts" exclusions and prohibit punitive damages.

Attempt to Side-step "Hole" In Coverage
PSU will file bodily injury claims to circumvent abuse and molestation exclusion.

Jan 31, 2012: The President Rodney Erickson's personal notes, dated January 30, indicated a plan to submit abuse claims as bodily injuries and utilize Hershey Medical Center to record medical expenses against the claims.

Feb 15. 2012: PSU filed a lawsuit against PMA seeking payment of the (bodily injury) claims for John Doe A.

Freeh Report, NCAA, and Lawsuits
With the understanding that intentional acts are not covered under its insurance policy, a small group of trustees embrace the allegations in the Freeh Report that place blame on PSU officials. In the following ten days, this group negotiates a set of sanctions and harsh financial penalties from the NCAA. This action is a continuation of the small group's goal of convincing the public of the culpability of Paterno, Spanier, and others for not preventing Sandusky's abuse.

July 12, 2012: The Freeh Report was issued claiming PSU officials were aware of Sandusky's sexual abuse of children and concealed the abuse.

July 12, 2012: PSU officials Karen Peetz, Rodney Erickson, and Kenneth Frazier publicly praised the Freeh Report as comprehensive and thorough, admonish Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier for their failure to protect children, and pledged to reform PSU by following the report's recommendations.

July 23, 2012: The President Erickson signed a Consent Decree with the NCAA and agreed to pay $60 million in fines for sexual abuse prevention and victim programs. The Consent Decree's language quotes from the Freeh Report. Action was approved by PSU BOT Executive Committee.

July/Aug 2012: Sandusky victims from trial and elsewhere file lawsuits against PSU.

Some Settlements Approved
Despite knowing that it is not insured for abuse and molestation claims from 1992 to 2004, the University begins settlements with trial victims who were abused during that time frame. Erickson understands that some of these claims will not be covered and infers that they will be paid from internal loan interest (residing in the Institutional Support Budget). While Erickson stated that Penn State wanted a "just outcome for the victims," the underlying motive for the settlements was as a demonstration of the University's culpability for Sandusky's abuse.

Sep 19, 2012: In a Bloomberg interview, then President Erickson stated that settlement money would come from insurance and internal loan (interest).

Sep 20, 2012: PSU hired Feinberg Rozen to moderate and settle claims.

Lubert: Board Member
at PSU & Second Mile

Oct 26, 2012: Subcommittee on Legal and Compliance, then chaired by current BOT Vice-Chair Ira Lubert, approved settlement actions in Sandusky related matters. Lubert was formerly a regional director at The Second Mile charity.

July 12, 2013: Subcommittee on Legal and Compliance propose approval of claims. Committee members included: Ira Lubert (chair); Kenneth Frazier (vice chair), Keith Masser (ex officio), Kathleen Casey, Richard Dandrea, Keith Eckel, George Greig, and Adam Taliaferro. Approved by PSU BOT Executive Committee.

Oct 28, 2013: 26 of 31 claims settled for the amount of $59.7 million. 3 claims were denied (D.F. claim among them) and 3 claims agreed to in principal (Victim 6 and Victim 9). The settlement agreements contained a provision that the claimants cannot file additional lawsuits against The Second Mile.

More Lawsuits and "Freeh" Money
Unable to come to terms with Penn State, Victims 6 and 9 use discovery of the Freeh Source materials to extract additional money from the University.

Nov 22, 2013: After being unable to reach agreement, Victim 9 files a lawsuit relying heavily on information from the Freeh Report to prove negligence on the part of Penn State.

Mar 18, 2014: After being unable to reach an agreement, Victim 6's legal team is awarded discovery of some of the Freeh Source materials.

Sep 3, 2014: Victim D.F. sues PSU, also citing Freeh Report to prove negligence.

Dec. 5, 2014: Victim X sues PSU, claiming abuse in 1988, argues his case would have been within the statute of limitations if not for PSU's failure to report in 2001.

Jan 1, 2015: Victim 9 legal team awarded discovery of Freeh Source materials. PSU was required to turn over all materials d by May 29, 2015

Apr 12, 2015: By an 18-6 vote, the BOT approves a substantial and undisclosed settlement for Victim 9 (estimated at between $15 - $20 million) and for five other claimants. Total payment of approximately $33.2 million.

Judge Slams Door on Reimbursements
In an outcome that should have been a surprise to no one, Judge Glazer ruled that PSU's case for reimbursement for the claims from between 1992 and 2004 were essentially denied. In his ruling, he frequently referenced the Freeh Report to justify that PSU was negligent, especially noting the timeframe from 1998 to 2001. Moreover, PSU attempted to refute the Freeh Report findings that PSU officials knew about Sandusky's behavior, but the arguments were refused by the Judge due to - among other things -- the University's acceptance of fines and sanctions from the NCAA.

32 claims were paid by PSU for a grand total of $92.8 million.

What we know:

1. PSU is not entitled to reimbursement for the claims between 1992 and 2004, which include at least eight victims: Matt Sandusky, Victim #2, John Doe A, Victim #3, Victim #4, Victim #5, Victim #7, and Victim #10. Estimated Loss: $12 million.

2. PSU can receive $3 million aggregate limit for three claims paid from 2005 and 2006. This coverage would include the exorbitant ($20 million) claim paid to Victim 9, a payment to Victim 1, and one other payment. Estimated Loss: $21 million.

3. PSU can receive full coverage for three claims prior to 1992. The ruling notes claims from 1976, 1987, and 1988. Estimated Coverage: $6 million.

What we don't know:

How many of the eighteen remaining claims fell within the 1992 to 2004 time frame that is not covered and how many occurred prior to 1992 and are fully covered.

The Bottom Line
The Committee on Legal and Compliance knowingly made a decisions to pay out at least $32 million that they (and Erickson) knew would not be covered by insurance.

In news that surprised no one who closely followed this fiasco, the University went on record to admit that the Committee and Feinberg Rozen did not require evidence to support the allegations made in the claims. At this point, we now know what Eric Barron meant in his video stating that some people don't believe Paterno's statue should be returned because of what they know.

Who are they? Lubert, Frazier, Peetz, Dambly, Eckel, Casey, and Dandrea. And they are all trustees who stood by the Freeh Report and did everything possible to ensure that it never got reviewed.

It is highly probable that if the Judge hadn't released the uncorroborated information about reports to Paterno in his ruling, one or some of these trustees would have leaked the information to the press -- on or about the time the alumni-elected trustees were going to finally toss the Freeh Report on the ash heap of history.

The settlements by this cabal of trustees and their efforts to protect the false and harmful narrative that was put forth by the Attorney General, the Freeh Report, and the NCAA were all part of an ongoing effort to convict Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz in the court of public opinion.

The purposeful damage done to the University by their actions is immeasurable and should qualify as malfeasance.

CNN's and NBC's Yellow Journalism

2016-05-08T23:29:00.001-04:00

After the Patriot News' yellow journalism about 1976, CNN and NBC followed with similar uncorroborated stories that were "too good to check."

By
Ray Blehar

Penn State President Eric Barron responded to the latest media attacks on the University by issuing a statement chastising them for rushing to judgment and publishing sensationalized stories.

The most important passages of his statement bear repeating (my emphasis added):

"....over the last two days we have worked to be diligent in reanalyzing the record of reports and depositions to ensure that our reactions and comments are both responsible and trustworthy.

First, the allegations related to Penn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them.

Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report. Others cite assistant coaches that were witnesses or had knowledge – stating it as fact in headlines and text – even in the face of a denial and clear failure to corroborate from the individuals allegedly involved. Other stories are clearly incredulous, and should be difficult for any reasonable person to believe. We should not be rendering judgments about the actions of Coach Paterno or any other former employees of Penn State based on incomplete, sensationalized media accounts.

While Barron did not get into the details, his description that these accounts are "incredulous" and "difficult for any reasonable person to believe" were 100 percent accurate. That two national media outlets like CNN and NBC would allow these stories to be run demonstrates how far both individual and organizational ethics have fallen.

Yellow Journalism by Sara Ganim, CNN

Sara Ganim’s column regarding an alleged 1971 child sex abuse incident that was allegedly reported to Joe Paterno should serve as reminder of why she won a Pulitzer Prize for LOCAL (not investigative) about the “Penn State Scandal.”

Ganim covered scandal over a year and knew that Sandusky was an acquaintance offender who befriended pre-teen boys and groomed them for victimization. In the latest article, she mentions victims being hesitant to come forward as a result of their "close relationships" with Sandusky. As such, she obviously knew that her story of Sandusky picking up a 15 year old hitchhiker, plying him with drugs and alcohol, and forcibly raping him was not consistent with Sandusky’s modus operandi.

The story continued on its incredulous path by then stating when the foster parents of the youth (dubbed Victim A) found out, they directed him to call high-ranking Penn State officials -- then told the youth that Penn State wouldn't call the police.

If these foster parents understood that, why didn't they call the police themselves?

"So many good things"

In what is surely a fabrication, the alleged Victim A states that he called the University and took part in a conference call with Joe Paterno and a man named Jim.

After allegedly telling them he was raped by Sandusky, he alleged Paterno and Jim threatened to call the authorities on him because they couldn't believe an attack could have come from a man who "did so many good things."

The year was 1971 and Sandusky had joined the coaching staff in 1969. He was an unheralded position coach then, and most importantly, would form his Second Mile charity six years later (in 1977).

In short, Sandusky wasn't famous in the community for his charitable work in 1971.

This adds more evidence of a fabricated story.

Unreliable Source

However, Ganim attempted to bolster this ridiculous story by using well known Paterno-hater, Bernie McCue, as the corroborating source.

She had to know her corroborating witness would not be viewed as an unbiased/credible source, as he was featured in the movie Happy Valley conducting a pathetic one-man protest at the Paterno statue.

McCue also had other anti-Paterno actions in his past, including writing derogatory and offensive notes in the courtesy newspapers and magazines provided at the Corner Room, then returning them for other patrons to find.

He was also arrested for harassment regarding an incident allegedly over Peachy Paterno ice cream being served at the Berkey Creamery.

According to source McCue, the alleged victim told him about the abuse in 1972. McCue was 33 or 34 years old when he got the report from the 15-16 year old victim. How did McCue explain coming in contact with the victim? Ganim doesn't say.

More than likely, she didn't think to check those facts and ask the question. However, it does raise an interesting question about McCue and his motivations.

As the old saying goes, "the guilty dog barks the loudest."

In summary, no investigative reporter would ever use a questionable source like Bernie McCue, which is consistent with the fact that Ganim is NOT an investigative reporter.

While Ganim's incompetence is evident, how was it that the editors at CNN weren't asking these questions about her incredulous story?

The only credible part of Ganim's story came at the end, where a state trooper recalled thinking the story was "too crazy to be believed."

Yellow Journalism by NBC

On May 8th, an NBC story, citing mostly unnamed sources, stated unequivocally that as many as six Penn State coaches had witnessed Sandusky's "inappropriate behavior" with children.

In fact, the article later stated that none of these incidents were corroborated, as a lawyer for one coach refuted the allegation, one coach refused to comment, one couldn't be reached, and the other is unknown.

NBC then referenced a report by Sandusky's adopted son, Matthew, that he was informed that a coach saw him being molested by Sandusky in a PSU locker room.

In Matthew Sandusky's recently released book, Undaunted, he told the story of how Jerry Sandusky was able to hide in plain sight and abuse children while in the presence of other, unwitting adults.

On page 10, Matthew specifically recalled a "wrestling" incident in which he was being fondled, but Sandusky stopped the fondling when he heard the door's cipher code being pressed, alerting them to someone entering the room. According to Matthew's account, Jerry then asked the assistant coach who walked in to do a three count as Jerry pretended to "pin" Matthew.

Numerous victims at the trial mentioned Sandusky wrestling with them as part of their "workouts."

Those familiar with the case also know that Victim 4 also mentioned the cipher code noise being used as a signal by Sandusky to disengage in whatever inappropriate conduct that was ongoing.

Sex crimes expert James Clemente also noted that, in his experience, many serial child molesters were experts in utilizing abuse techniques that provided them with plausible deniability. According to trial testimony, Sandusky used techniques such wrestling matches, tickling, blowing raspberries on the boy's stomachs as a means of accomplishing this.

All of the information above is readily available on the public record. NBC knew or should have known that Sandusky was able to avoid detection even when abusing boys in plain sight. As such, the coaches observing Sandusky and the child likely had no idea anything "inappropriate" was occurring.

Finally, it bears repeating that none of these claims were corroborated by the coaches who were alleged to have observed "inappropriate behavior" and that Penn State issued a statement that there is no evidence supporting the claims.

Clicks

The bottom line is that CNN and NBC weren't interested in accuracy and had stories that were "too good to check." As Jay Paterno wrote, they are part of a media who is only interested in "clicks."

1976, Insurance, Evidence, and Media Hypocrisy

2016-05-07T01:00:00.004-04:00

In what should have been a story about how the Penn State Board of Trustees blew $93 million dollars, the media spun a story about an uncorroborated allegation about Joe Paterno

By
Ray Blehar

Yesterday, a judge ruled that Penn State University was not entitled to insurance reimbursement for most of the claims it paid to victims as a result of the Sandusky scandal. The majority of the settlements paid for claims after 1992 are not covered.

You can read a responsibly written report by Lori Falce of the Centre Daily Times about that here.

The story that made all the national headlines, however, involves an unsupported allegation about a 1976 incident that was allegedly reported to Joe Paterno by an alleged Sandusky victim. The media malpractice came about not only when the word "alleged" was dropped from the headlines, but when the Patriot News ran with the uncorroborated allegation.

Getting back to responsible journalism, Falce wrote:

But why use the word “alleged”? The retired defensive coordinator was convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse crimes in 2012, right? Yes. Those 45 counts relate to 10 boys, and incidents that occurred between September 1995 and the summer of 2009. However, Glazer’s order points to many more people and claims that include 1976, 1987, 1988, 1998 and 2001.

Based on the judges ruling, PSU is not entitled to reimbursement for the compensation awarded to almost all of the victims who testified at the trial, to the person who claimed to be Victim 2, to John Doe A (whose abuse in 1994 brought about PMA's lawsuit), and John Doe X who claimed abuse in 2004. Victims 1 and 9's 2005 allegations will be covered as a single claim and will result in serious financial impact of around $20 million to PSU.

It should also be noted that PSU's failure to challenge the validity of the Freeh Report resulted in no coverage for claims between 1998 and 2001.

As for the other non-trial claimants, PSU has admitted it has no evidence to corroborate their claims.

Uncorroborated Allegations

On Friday, PSU released a statement that it does not possess any information to corroborate the allegations about the 1976 report and others:

"The university has no records from the time to help evaluate the claims. More importantly, Coach Paterno is not here to defend himself. Penn State does not intend to comment further, out of concern for privacy, and due to the strict confidentiality commitments that govern our various settlement agreements."

If there was more responsible journalism in America, the second part of the story is that PSU didn't bother to vet the claims.

In 2013, the PSU Board of Trustees Legal and Compliance Committee, then chaired by current Vice-Chair Ira Lubert, approved a settlement program then allocated $59.7 million dollars for compensation based on 31 claims. In what is surely not a coincidence, PSU's insurance coverage for bodily injury claims was $2 million per incident and a $3 million aggregate limit.

Do the math.

26 of the 31 claims were approved and all $59.7 million was spent. However, 3 of the claims not approved happened to be for incidents in which the claimants were asking for compensation over $3 million.

The bottom line was that the legal team from Feinberg Rozen, basically approved the claims based on whether or not it was inside the insurance coverage limits.

In 2015, an additional $33 million was paid for later claims, including an exorbitant payment to one claimant who was previously denied compensation (after his lawyers were granted access to the Freeh Source materials).

As the judge ruled, PSU was not covered for many to most of the claims -- and had no legitimate reason to EXPECT coverage based on its policies.

Use of Evidence

As I write this, various alleged legal experts, some from the world of sports, have weighed in that the 1976 allegation about Paterno cannot be corroborated. They are correct, however, the legitimacy of the entire 1976 claim can be evaluated in light of the other evidence in the case.

Former FBI child molestation investigator, Kenneth Lanning, who wrote what was is commonly referred to as the "Child Molester Investigator's Bible" provides this guidance on assessing victim claims.

Given the above, the 1976 deposition could be accessed and reviewed for consistency with the grooming and victimization techniques used by Sandusky. Other details in the deposition can also be examined for credibility, as I will show below.

In summary, not only can the 1976 deposition be evaluated, but any and all depositions should be evaluated by qualified individuals.

The Feinberg Rozen team proved themselves not capable of the task -- and the same goes for the unqualified investigators and biased prosecutors who worked on the Sandusky case.

Notable Vetting Failure

Using Lanning's "template of probability," Victim 5's most serious abuse allegation was not credible nor was the August 2001 time frame of it. The significance of the date was that PSU paid the (then) largest settlement to Victim 5 because PSU could have prevented his abuse (because it allegedly occurred after the McQueary shower incident).

Unlike Feinberg Rozen, the jury likely used the "template of probability" in vetting V5's indecent assault allegation -- and voting not guilty for that charge.

V5 testified to meeting Sandusky in 1999 and attending numerous events, including trips to Albright College to watch football games over two years. However, unlike the rest of the victims he testified he didn't work out and shower with Sandusky until 2001. Almost all of the other victims stated they were introduced by Sandusky the first year of camp and then invited to work out very early in their relationships with Sandusky. In Victim 6's case, it was his initial one-on-one encounter.

Also, Victim 5 alleged being indecently touched the first time he showered with Sandusky. Other victims who showered with Sandusky on multiple occasions testified to a gradual progression of touching/washing leading into indecent touching. This gradual progression is typical for acquaintance offenders, as noted by Dr. Alycia Chambers Report about the Victim 6 (1998) incident.

In summary, Victim 5's abuse scenario didn't fit the "template of probability."

The testimony about the time frame of the incident was also inconsistent.

-- Victim 5 told the grand jury he was abused in 1998 (when he was ten years old).

-- In November 2011, he met with investigators to tell them he might have been the child referred to in the 2000 janitor incident (when he was twelve)

-- At the trial and in his claim, he stated he clearly recalled being abused in August 2001 (when he was 13). Note: Prosecutors changed the Bill of Particulars in his case from a very broad time frame 1996 to 2002 down to a single month (August 2001).

Notably, Judge Cleland instructed the jury that child victims who were abused many years ago can't be expected to know the exact date of the abuse.

So which date was most accurate?

According to his grand jury testimony, Victim 5 stated Sandusky had an erection in the shower didn't understand what it meant.

Given that testimony, it is more likely he was ten and it was in 1998 and not 13 in 2001. Also, given Sandusky's penchant for early showers with his victims, it occurred soon after he met Victim 5, not two years later.

Again, Feinberg Rozen made the Victim 5 settlement the highest on the grounds that it happened in August 2001 and could have been prevented by PSU.

Victim Credibility/Media Hypocrisy

The media is quick to criticize anyone who questions the claims of a child sexual abuse victim. In the Jerry Sandusky case, the media remains quick to accept and run with uncorroborated allegations and sensationalize them.

While Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 counts, the single count that caused the media firestorm - the 2001 rape allegation -- resulted in an acquittal. You will be hard pressed to find media coverage highlighting that fact.

Interestingly enough, the only other victim to allege being raped and have it result in a conviction was Victim 9. The media dutifully reported that he was raped repeatedly and had little issue with his story -- until it came crashing down on Tom Corbett's Sandusky investigation.

After AG Kathleen Kane correctly reported that Victim 9's abuse occurred in 2009 during the Sandusky investigation, the Patriot News' Charles Thompson quickly leaped into action claiming his abuse ended in 2008.

His testimony on cross-examination was certain. The abuse was through his 16th birthday -- as reported by the Patriot News in its trial coverage.

Unlike Victim 5, who was trying to recall an incident from 10 or more years prior, Victim 9 was 18 when he testified to being abused two years prior at age 16.

The Patriot News editorial board wrote an op-ed that contradicted their own newspaper's trial coverage.

CNN's Sara Ganim, a Pulitzer winner, also got in on the action, turning back the clock on Victim 9's abuse when she wrote about his civil lawsuit.

But the hypocrisy wasn't just about Victim 9.

Victim D.F., who was identified by Kane as another child abused while the Sandusky investigation lagged, was also labeled as not credible by the Patriot News (and Penn State).

D.F. made the "mistake" of claiming his abuse took place from 2008 to 2011. As such, his allegations were dismissed outright by Prosecutor Frank Fina and the Patriot News.

The facts are that D.F.'s lawsuit allegations are extremely similar to those of Victim 10, who was presented as a witness at the trial by Fina and who received a settlement from PSU.

In summary, the Patriot News determined credibility in these cases based on WHO it implicated, not the evidence on which it was based. It blamed selected PSU officials, but protected those at the state government level who were truly responsible and had the information needed to stop Sandusky in 1998 and in 2009.

Real Tragedy: PA's Kids Sold Down the River

The real tragedy of the Sandusky Scandal is that the truth became the biggest victim -- and Charles Thompson, Sara Ganim, and the editorial board of the Patriot News sold PA's kids down the river to win a Pulitzer prize.

Their recent reports aimed at Paterno are nothing more than a desperate attempts to try to prop up Ganim's factually challenged and now crumbling Pulitzer stories about a Penn State football cover-up that didn't happen. Ganim's latest story is so far fetched that it should be on the cover of the National Enquirer.

The Patriot News and Ganim's feigned concerns about the welfare of children are the height of hypocrisy. Their reporting failed to educate the public on how acquaintance offenders and that irresponsible reporting continues.

More Hypocrisy: I wrote about settlement payouts here back in May 2015 -- after PSU paid out an estimated $20 million to settle with Victim 9, who was originally denied compensation. After his legal team had been awarded discovery to the Freeh Source materials, the BOT convened and emergency meeting to approve his payment.

Paterno Family Demands Full Review of the Facts

2016-05-06T07:27:00.003-04:00

PATERNO FAMILY DEMANDS FULL REVIEW OF FACTS, REFUSES TO ONCE AGAIN FIGHT SHADOWS AND RUMORS

Because of a single sentence in a court record of an insurance case, Joe Paterno's reputation has once again been smeared with an unsubstantiated, forty year old allegation. In response to this allegation and the subsequent media hype, the Paterno family is demanding a full public review of the facts.

From day one, Joe Paterno and his family have called for an objective and total pursuit of the truth with a full respect for due process. In 2011 and 2012 Joe Paterno was subjected to an unprecedented rush to justice by Louis Freeh and the NCAA. Time has proven that the Freeh report was deeply flawed and the unprecedented punitive actions of the NCAA were unjustified. Over the past four and a half years, numerous allegations that were taken as fact when they were initially communicated have been proven false. It is in this context that the latest claim should be viewed.

The reckless, all-out rush to accept accusations as legitimate without a full fair review of the facts, cannot be allowed to happen again. Fighting shadows and rumors on issues that are this significant is a disservice to everyone who cares about the truth. We do not fear the truth, we embrace it. And we will not allow a repeat of what happened before. We challenge anyone with evidence of misconduct to come forward and present their allegations in a process that allows a full, fair review of the evidence. We will stand by the facts, but we will never accept veiled accusations presented in a context where they cannot be objectively reviewed and analyzed.

If anything has been learned from the Sandusky tragedy it should be that rushed investigations do incredible harm. For once, a fair process should come before conclusions are reached.

PS4RS 4/29/2016 Statement: AG Not Pursuing Appeal

2016-04-30T08:00:00.001-04:00

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship Calls Case Against Penn State Admins “Ill-Conceived;”

Asks for Formal Second Mile Investigation

April 29, 2016 — Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) is pleased that the Pennsylvania Attorney General has today recognized the futility of pursuing the most serious charges against the Penn State administrators who were indicted in connection with the Jerry Sandusky case. From the outset, our members have questioned why Penn State administrators have been held responsible for the errors made by administrators of Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile. We hope that the elimination of this distraction, along with the eventual dismissal of the baseless mandatory reporting and child endangerment charges, will turn the conversation towards making Pennsylvania children truly safer. That begins with an official, formal investigation into The Second Mile, the non-profit that was founded by a now-convicted preferential child sexual offender. And it continues with a closer look at how such an offender could hide in plain sight, escaping the scrutiny of county and state licensed child welfare professionals, child protection advocates, Child Protective Services and ChildLine. Too much time and too many resources have been wasted on an ill-conceived case targeting the wrong institution. This was never a Penn State problem. It is was – and still is – a State of Pennsylvania problem.

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS), with more than 40,000 members, was formed to promote positive change within the University Board of Trustees, demanding transparent, trustworthy leadership. For further information on PS4RS, please visitwww.PS4RS.org, email ps4rsinfo@ps4rs.org, or go to http://www.facebook.com/PS4RS. Follow PS4RS on Twitter at @PS4RS.

Kane’s office won’t pursue appeal in Spanier, Schultz, Curley charges

by Lori Falce

The Office of Attorney General is not going to appeal a ruling that dropped some charges against former Penn State leaders.

According to an announcement from Attorney General Kathleen Kane, her office will not pursue an appeal of the state Supreme Court ruling from January. That was when a panel tossed the perjury, obstruction and conspiracy counts against former university president Graham Spanier and former vice president Gary Schultz, as well as obstruction and conspiracy against former athletic director Tim Curley.

That leaves failure to report suspected abuse and endangering the welfare of children charges against all three and a perjury count against Curley remaining in Dauphin County. The charges stem from the grand jury proceedings against retired Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.

“The attorney general accepts the opinion of the Solicitor General and, in response thereto, orders that no further resources of the Commonwealth be expended to pursue a possible appeal,” the OAG said in a release.

Why I Didn't Read "Wounded Lions"

2016-04-19T23:03:00.000-04:00

"Wounded Lions" author Ron Smith set out to create the history to support a never to be proven allegation that PSU officials failed to report Sandusky in 2001.

By
Ray Blehar

According to a January 19, 2016 email from "Wounded Lions" author Ron Smith, he set out to find the "historical background" that explained "how Penn State administrators responded to the Sandusky scandal."

Smith was not speaking about how the Penn State Board of Trustees sold the University down the river under the false pretense that they were caught by surprise by the Sandusky investigation.

He was digging around trying to find individuals who would support the false narrative of an insular athletic culture that didn't conform to the rules of the rest of the University.

Smith's emails contained numerous examples of his falling for false narratives that the Attorney General's office and Louis Freeh wrote to deflect attention away from the failings of the Pennsylvania State Police, The Second Mile, and child welfare agents. Instead, they heaped the responsibilities of those organizations onto Penn State.

The gullible emeritus professor got played like a fiddle.

Smith built a half century of history to support a false narrative of an insular football culture.

While Smith claims to have done extensive research about the history of PSU athletics, he admitted that he wasn't concerned about whether people were innocent or guilty.

Seriously?

The whole "Penn State scandal" was based on allegations that Curley and Schultz, then eventually Spanier, failed to report abuse but Smith didn't believe he needed to find out whether that happened or not.

What is even more crazy is that Smith admitted that if a trial took place, PSU officials wouldn't be found guilty.

That statement said a lot about Smith's knowledge about the scandal.

First, all he needed to do was read the child abuse reporting statutes to know whether or not what PSU did (or didn't do) was criminal. It wasn't. The statute didn't apply to University administrators in 2001 and still doesn't today -- even after revisions to the statutes in 2014.

Next, he didn't follow the case close enough to know that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are scheduled to be tried together. There will be one trial, not three.

Finally, he didn't think they would be found guilty -- but the failure to report Sandusky charge is the decision for which he based his historical research.

So Smith forges on apparently assuming the PSU 3 are guilty -- but won't be convicted at a trial because of a lack of evidence.

Speaking of evidence or lack thereof, the book's premise is that PSU athletics was an "insular" operation.

Well, that premise was defeated by the evidence that was made public the day the Sandusky grand jury presentment was published.

Evidence: PSU athletic department officials were extremely forthcoming and open in reporting and/or investigating Jerry Sandusky in 1998 and in 2001.

In 1998, PSU Athletic Director (AD) Timothy Curley did not interfere or attempt to get involved in a child abuse investigation of then full-time assistant coach and defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.

In 2001, athletic department employees Mike McQueary, Joe Paterno, and AD Curley, when confronted with another incident of retired former coach Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with a child, reported the incident in accordance with University protocols. In short, it was reported outside athletics.

Neither the 1998 nor the 2001 incident fit Smith's template of athletics as an "insular" operation.

But he somehow built a half-century of history to show that it was.

That's why I didn't waste my time reading "Wounded Lions."

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

2016-04-14T22:16:00.001-04:00

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

By
Ray Blehar

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

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

Kane was right. The delays were "inexcusable."

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

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

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

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

Failure to Find Victim 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

That didn't happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failure to Find Victim 10

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

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

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

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

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

Inexplicable delays? Certainly not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 2

2016-03-24T23:35:00.002-04:00

If Corbett's assertion that the AG needed a grand jury to prove a cover-up was true, then the outcome for the former one-term governor is even worse

By
Ray Blehar

For Corbett, if his statement was true
then he confessed to foot-dragging.

While the official facts in evidence refute former Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) and former Governor Tom Corbett's statement about needing a grand jury to coerce testimony and prove a cover-up, the irony is that if his statement was true, it is an admission of not investigating a cover up and/or foot-dragging on the investigation for political reasons.

As noted here, the facts in evidence were that the AG's office didn't find another victim to corroborate Aaron Fisher allegations until January 2011.

If there wasn't evidence of more than one victim --and that Fisher reported Sandusky to the authorities -- then there was no evidence that supported a cover-up.

But what if Corbett was telling the truth? In this case, the truth is worse than a lie.

Under one of the "truth" scenarios, the AG's office may have had a hunch that the reason the other young men that were interviewed didn't disclose abuse was because some person or persons had provided them with some material incentive not to talk.

While it is possible that victims may have been physically threatened, the only known victim, Fisher, came forward without fear of physical harm in November 2008. And, like the other eventual victims, Fisher received gifts from Sandusky, such as new clothes, computers, and sports equipment.

In short, the most likely suspect in a cover-up scenario would have been none other than the perpetrator, Jerry Sandusky.

The Jerry Sandusky Non-Investigation

According to the Moulton Report, there is no evidence that the investigation searched Sandusky's personal records to verify purchases or to check for cash (ATM) withdrawals -- his bank account and credit card records were not subpoenaed.

Fisher also stated he attended sporting events, such as Eagles and Browns National Football League (NFL) games with Sandusky, sometimes in the company of other children.

Here's where the story gets interesting.

In late 2009, Dawn Daniels claimed that she was offered free Philadelphia Eagles box seat season tickets. In the book, Silent No More (p. 117), Mike Gillum noted that a man named "John" from the Eagles, who knew that Aaron had attended games and had set the tickets aside for them.

At the time of the alleged offer, Sandusky's adopted son, Jon, worked for the Eagles. He would later get a job with the Browns.

The AG "investigated" the Eagles ticket allegation and took the word of the Eagles -- that the family misunderstood and were being asked to purchase tickets. Right -- because the Eagles routinely phone housing projects in search of prospective season ticket purchasers.

In the one instance where a possible cover-up/payoff scenario was alleged, it appeared to be investigated pro forma and dismissed. The "John" - "Jon" connection wasn't made.

If Sandusky was the prime suspect, then the first information subpoenaed about him were his employment records -- requested on January 7, 2010. That was almost seven months into the investigation and employment records would not provide evidence of a cover-up.

In fact, in the inexplicable Sandusky investigation, the evidence apparently reveals that the AG didn't consider Sandusky could have been a suspect for covering up his own crimes!

But don't expect Bumsted or the rest of the media to figure this stuff out.

News reporters, most without any knowledge of the case, might propose that Corbett and the AG suspected that officials at Central Mountain High School (CMHS) or from The Second Mile (TSM) were behind the alleged cover-up.

Under those scenarios, there is also a dearth of evidence of even a half-hearted cover-up investigation.

CMHS Non-Investigation
According to the Moulton Report, the only CMHS individual interviewed by the police -- prior to July 28, 2011 -- was assistant principal and head football coach, Steven Turchetta. Again, Corbett said he needed the grand jury to coerce testimony.

Who was being coerced? Turchetta was a cooperating witness.

Certainly, there is no evidence on the record supporting a cover-up investigation of CMHS.

The Non-Investigation of The Second Mile
Geoffrey Moulton used the word "inexplicable" to explain the delays in getting warrants for Sandusky's home and making an arrest. However, that same word applies to the Pennsylvania State Police's (PSP) failure to interview individuals and gather evidence from The Second Mile (TSM) as a means of identifying potential victims.

Moreover, if there was an organization that should have been suspected of covering up Sandusky's crimes, TSM should have been at the top of the list. Sandusky was the organizations founder, face, and top fundraiser.

As history shows, without Sandusky, TSM could not exist.

Even if the PSP didn't understand the financial incentive for a TSM cover-up, they had plenty of leads that should have caused them to visit the charity early in the investigation. The first seven people interviewed by the PSP all mentioned Sandusky's association with TSM and his work in mentoring young men.

The PSP continued to investigate the case when it was ensconced in the grand jury.

In August 2009, F.A., a former CMHS student, testified to the grand jury about being a TSM participant and being in the car with Fisher and Sandusky. Following F.A.'s testimony, Agent Anthony Sassano drafted a list of investigative steps that excluded contacting anyone associated with the charity. In reading the email below, the incompetency of Sassano is evident -- and likely explains why he was assigned to the case.

Even if Sassano was incompetent, he was being overseen by a seasoned prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach, who had prosecuted many sexual abuse cases. Eshbach should have been the "backstop" that made sure investigators didn't miss anything.

Instead, it appeared that Eshbach was equally avoiding investigating TSM, as this request for subpoena reveals the gymnastics that had to be undertaken to not request records from the charity, but justify a request to Penn State.

It is notable that Eshbach and the AG had "some suspicion" -- based on no evidence on the official record -- that PSU had knowledge of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with children.

More on that in a second.

In summary, the evidence shows that if Corbett and the AG suspected a cover-up, then it failed to investigate any of the most probable suspects until 2011. Based on the official record of evidence, the Sandusky grand jury was not investigating a cover-up or coercing any witness testimony.

Suppressed Evidence Equals Electoral Foot-Dragging or Worse
Eshbach's subpoena request is among the earliest official records indicating the AG may have obtained information about the PSU incidents earlier than November 2010.

The unofficial record may help fill in the blanks.

Mike Gillum, in Silent No More (p. 120), stated that on June 16, 2009, Eshbach and Trooper Scott Rossman "indicated there was some other evidence they weren't at liberty to share with me. It was something that happened in 1998."

While the official record states the 1998 University Park police report was not obtained until January 3, 2011, Gillum's account reveals that the AG got its hands on the 1998 report much earlier -- in fact, it appears that they possessed it around the time of the grand jury began.

If that was really the case, then Corbett might have been telling the truth about using the grand jury to prove a cover-up. Except there's a problem with the 1998 police report.

It doesn't provide evidence or suspicion of a cover-up by PSU.

In fact, it shows the opposite because PSU immediately reached out to the DA's office and Centre County CYS to assist with the 1998 investigation.

That leads to the highly probable scenario that if Corbett suspected a PSU cover-up, then he had knowledge of the 2001 incident when the grand jury was convened.

The fact that the anonymous email tip on the incident showed up the day after Corbett was elected governor provides additional evidence that he was sitting on that evidence until after the election.

In summary, the circumstantial evidence in the case indicates that foot-dragging on the Sandusky case was politically motivated. It also indicates that the AG could have found victims and made Sandusky's arrest much sooner.

But arresting Sandusky wasn't part of the original plan -- and that's really why the foot-dragging occurred.

The Sandusky investigation was supposed to die a slow, secret death in the grand jury.

Next: Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie

2016-03-16T21:45:00.000-04:00

Former AG Tom Corbett's rationale for the inpaneling of the Sandusky grand jury in 2009 doesn't square with the facts in evidence

Ray Blehar

As I was reading Brad Bumsted's "Keystone Corruption, A Pennsylvania Insiders Guide to a State Gone Wrong" last week, I came across an interesting statement attributed to Tom Corbett on page 196 about his reasoning behind using use of a grand jury in the Sandusky case.

Corbett's grand jury rationale
doesn't square with the facts.

"Corbett said the grand jury was needed to compel testimony and because of the complexity of proving a cover-up."

That statement doesn't square with the facts.

On May 1st 2009, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General submitted the Sandusky investigation to the Thirtieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury. On May 5th, the case was accepted.

According to evidence, Aaron Fisher was the only known victim until the eventual Victim 6 was identified in January 2011. Moreover, according to the Moulton Report (page 148), in August 2010, Corbett agreed with other prosecutors that the case shouldn't be charged due to the lack of victims.

Early August 2010. Fina, Sheetz, and Ryan meet with Corbett to discuss the status of the Sandusky investigation. Corbett affirms their recommendation that the case should not then be charged and that the search for other victims should continue.

Corbett's response to the Moulton Report, filed by his attorney Mark Zimmer on June 11, 2014, did not provide a reason for using a grand jury, other than it was a choice made by "career prosecutors."

More importantly, however, the response stated that the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to justify a search warrant for Sandusky's home until police interviewed Victim 7 (February 2011) and Victim 4 (April 2011) -- who provided the "fresh evidence" to justify a search warrant.

There are several credibility issues associated with the Corbett response. Notably, the "fresh evidence" obtained in 2011 pertained incidents that occurred in Sandusky's home from 1996 through 2000, thus were of incidents five to thirteen years earlier than those reported by Fisher.

Next, if this "fresh evidence" of "use of his residence for pedophilia" provided the basis for an airtight search warrant, then why did it take until June 20, 2011 to request it?

Finally, and most importantly, if there was not sufficient evidence to justify a search warrant of Sandusky's home until the spring of 2011, then Corbett's assertion that the Sandusky grand jury was inpaneled to prove a cover-up was a lie.

But don't expect an "insider" and ace reporter like Brad Bumsted to ever figure that out.

"Freeh source materials" confirm the Curley File

2016-02-27T21:20:00.001-05:00

Freeh Report source materials already in the public domain, combined with other evidence, confirm that Tim Curley had a file on Sandusky -- and its contents found their way into the so-called Schultz "secret file"

Ray Blehar

Even though the alumni-elected members of the Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) have succeeded in gaining access to the Freeh source materials, the court sided with Old Main to keep the information from being publicly disclosed.

Regardless of that ruling, and likely unknown to the public, some of the Freeh source materials are already in the public domain - and they prove that evidence was manipulated and/or tampered with in order to railroad PSU officials (i.e., Curley, Schultz, and Spanier).

However, when the source materials are combined with other existing evidence, the totality of the evidence confirms that former PSU Athletic Director (AD) Tim Curley had information related to the Sandusky matter -- and that information was illegally placed into the so-called "secret file" of former PSU VP for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz.

The Key Evidence?

What appears to be a seemingly insignificant document -- a February 11, 2001 computer printout that lists the names of the Board of Directors of The Second Mile (TSM) and its date/time stamp -- turns out to be a very key piece of evidence.

According to the Freeh Report (at 71), on "February 12, 2001, at about 11:10 AM, Schultz researched the internet about the Board members of The Second Mile, the charitable organization Sandusky founded."

The passage is referenced to End Note #303: Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12), however this printout -- that was printed at the exact same time "Schultz researched the internet" -- was not included in the Freeh Report. Had it been included, most reasonable people (not Sally Jenkins) would have concluded that Freeh was making quite an evidentiary leap to tie an unlabeled computer printout to a specific individual. In short, Freeh excluded the print out as a matter of maintaining his (alleged) credibility.

The document wasn't introduced as evidence in any legal proceeding to date -- for a very good reason.

The timeline of evidence does not support Gary Schultz searching for the names of members of the TSM Board on February 12, 2001.

Curley, Not Schultz, Concerned About TSM

Freeh Report Exhibit 5C, the February 12, 2001 "Confidential" hand-written note of Gary Schultz outlined an early plan for addressing the 2001 incident. Schultz made no mention of TSM in that plan.

According to the grand jury testimony of Curley (at 181 and 188), he originated the plan to inform TSM about the 2001 incident and proposed it during the February 25, 2001 meeting with former PSU President Graham Spanier and Schultz.

Freeh Report Exhibit 5G, Schultz's February 28, 2001 email also confirms Curley proposed informing TSM: "we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed)."

Schultz also memorialized Curley's plan, which included discussions with TSM, on February 25th and 26th, in handwriting (Exhibit 5G) and by email (Exhibit 5F), respectively.

Finally, Freeh Report Exhibit 2J, the notes of Graham Spanier, also confirm that Curley was very concerned about his impending interaction with TSM.

In summary, this evidence reveals that Curley came up with the plan to talk to TSM and had concerns about the charity's reaction. Given the evidence, it was Curley - not Schultz -- who printed out the names of the TSM board members on February 12th.

While the printout turns out to be a very significant document in the grand scheme of things, it's not the only "source" document that provides evidence of manipulation and/or tampering.

March 7, 2001 Email Manipulation/Bias

A March 7, 2001 email allegedly obtained from the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz, memorialized a discussion between Curley and Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble, regarding Curley's follow up on the plan to address the incident.

Freeh Report's Exhibit 5I of the email is on the left, while the source document (introduced as Commonwealth's Exhibit 18 at the July 2013 preliminary hearing) is on the right.

The evidence shows that the Freeh Report exhibit was printed from an email file and was not the full email discussion between Coble and Curley. The Freeh Report excluded any mention of Curley's affirmative response that he had followed through on the plan by March 7th. Note that March 7th is the circled date at top of the full email.

This is significant because the Freeh Report stated, without equivocation, that Curley met with TSM on March 19, 2001. However, the Freeh Report's March 19, 2001 date is based on a hearsay statement from an unnamed legal representative for TSM.

The Freeh Report's conclusion of the March 19th meeting between Curley and TSM was also refuted by Spanier's notes (Freeh Exhibit 2J). Spanier wrote that he met with Curley shortly after their late February meeting that the former AD had followed through on the plan to speak with TSM.

The Freeh Report made several inferences that Spanier had been less than honest with the Freeh investigators, thus excluding the critical evidence of the March 7th date was two fold: to support the Freeh Report conclusion of a March 19th meeting and to undermine the credibility of Spanier.

As shown in email obtained by PSU alumnus, Ryan Bagwell, Freeh made it a point to alert personnel conducting Spanier's background investigation for a security clearance about evidence found during the (criminal) investigation. Spanier would eventually lose his clearance as a result of the charges against him.

The evidence manipulation to persecute PSU officials certainly was more widespread than those documents. Over 80 documents cited as sources in the Freeh Report were excluded, and most importantly, some of the most critical missing evidence is tied to the Curley/Schultz files.

Curley's Notes Turned Over In February 2011

The grand jury questioning by Frank Fina revealed he was not yet aware that Tim Curley possessed any information about Sandusky. Fina didn't ask a single question whether Tim had taken notes during any of the meetings about the 2001 incident. In fact, Fina didn't even ask Curley (or anyone else) if they had searched for documents responsive to Subpoena 1179. Clearly, Fina knew that Baldwin didn't tell these men to search for documents.

According to the Freeh Report (at 84), on February 15, 2011, Baldwin met with members of the football coaching staff to discuss their knowledge of Sandusky. The next day, OAG investigators were present and conducted more interviews. It is likely that the search for documents from the football coaches and AD officials occurred then or very shortly thereafter.

OAG special agent, Anthony Sassano later testified that the legal team of Duane Morris delivered boxes of information (he presumed was from Schultz's office) that contained Sandusky's retirement paperwork. Duane Morris was the former employer of Cynthia Baldwin -- and she brought in members of that firm in to assist her. According to a notation on one of the retirement papers (Freeh Report Exhibit 3H), it was received (by someone, but certainly not Louis Freeh) on February 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm.

While the public has been led to believe that the retirement paperwork came from the Schultz file, it is clear that Curley had a copy of it. As noted on the letter, Sandusky was instructed to return his signed copy to Curley (see below). This indeed confirms that Curley and/or the AD's office had information related to Sandusky in its possession.

But that's not the only significant issue regarding the Curley file.

More Tampering?
According to the testimony of Joan Coble, she had no specific knowledge of anything in the bottom drawer of Schultz's filing cabinet. She testified she never looked in the drawer. As such, Coble's testimony provided no legitimate information regarding the contents of the Schultz file.

Based on the evidence cited previously, by the time Kimberly Belcher removed the file from Schultz's bottom drawer in November 2011, it had been touched by so many hands that the authenticity/integrity of the contents would be compromised.

It also appears that one of the "hands" involved may have tampered with the retirement letter.

Under magnification, it appears that Schultz's signature has been overlaid on a previous signature block. Note that the words "BY UNIVERSITY OFFICER: and "for Finance" do not have shadowing or aliasing around them.

For the purpose of comparison, here is top of page two at similar magnification, showing the clear, bolder, non-shadowed type as the authentic typeface.

It is highly probable that those who tampered with the evidence did so thinking that Freeh's impeccable reputation would prevent anyone from questioning the authenticity of the evidence and that they could get away with railroading the PSU 3.

Under the patently ridiculous narrative of the Freeh Report, it was the lure of the Penn State football facilities that provided the "very currency" that Sandusky used to attract his victims. With Schultz's signature affixed to the document, each of the PSU 3 (and Paterno) would be tried in the court of public opinon for enabling Sandusky's sexual abuse.

Freeh publicly smeared PSU officials for allowing Sandusky to be on campus after there were no charges or findings against him in 1998. Moreover, Freeh ignored the evidence that no crimes occurred on campus after 2001, instead stating that abuse continued on the PSU campus through 2009.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly, evidence timelines or chain of custody of evidence can be counted on to undo the false narratives of the cases prosecuted by the PA Corruption Network.

The Chain of Custody of the Schultz Files

According to OAG officials, the notes of Schultz were not provided to them until April 2012 -- by Schultz and his former administrative assistant, Kimberly Belcher.

Louis Freeh claimed, during his highly publicized press conference, that "we found them in conjunction with the Attorney General." The Freeh Report notes the date of discovery as May 1, 2012.

However, both of those claims are refuted by the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson. On 31 January 2012, which was three months before the Schultz notes were either turned over to the OAG or "found" by Freeh, Erickson wrote that he was to get copies of the notes of Curley and Schultz.

PSU alumnae Eileen Morgan's excellent analysis of the evidence surrounding the grand jury questioning of Curley, Schultz, and the late former PSU football Coach, Joe Paterno almost certainly proves that Frank Fina received the Schultz file from PSU (i.e., Baldwin) prior to the January 12, 2011 proceeding.

While Erickson's notebook confirms that he knew that Freeh's alleged discovery of the Schultz file and the OAG's pretense that the files were not turned over until April 2012 were both shams, it also confirmed that he was aware of Fina's strategy to get Curley and Schultz to flip.

Based on the analysis of the evidence, it is highly probable that Fina, et al, decided to throw the whole kitchen sink of evidence at Schultz, rather than Curley, in an effort to produce the flip.

The Truth

PSU, under Erickson and new puppet President Eric Barron have paid out untold millions to keep various litigants, including some of its own trustees, from accessing the Freeh source materials.

In doing so, Old Main and the Old Guard utilized specious arguments or protecting employee confidentiality and that the Freeh Report didn't impact University decisions as a means to keep the alumni trustees from finding out the truth.

The reality of the matter is that Erickson, Baldwin, and others know that it is only a matter of time before the Freeh source materials expose the truth about the Sandusky matter.

And the only thing Erickson, Baldwin, Harmon, Fina and numerous others fear more than the truth is what the truth will eventually do to them.

Wendy Silverwood: 2/26/2016 Public Comment to BOT

2016-02-26T17:34:00.000-05:00

At the core of any community is its values -- the shared ideals about how people should act toward one another, the standards to which we hold ourselves, and those beliefs we find important.

I wanted to address two of these Penn State core values out of the six that are published.

INTEGRITY: We act with integrity and honesty in accordance with the highest academic, professional, and ETHICAL standards.

Conversely the integrity, professional and ethical standards of individuals within our former Office of Attorney General ran counter to those of the University.

Frank Fina was the star prosecutor in that office — the guy who made Governor Corbett’s career.

Fina, along with other officials including those involved with the Sandusky case are caught up in what we now know as ‪#‎PornGate‬ and ‪#‎HateGate‬.

Among the hard core pornography Fina circulated from his office, much of it included images of women engaged in anal sex, oral sex and group sex.

Images of women being VIOLATED with various objects.

Recall that prosecutor Fina supervised that inflammatory grand jury presentment indicting Tim Curley and Gary Schultz with failing to report a crime of violation.

A crime acoustically and physically impossible as described, and later born out as untrue by evidence and testimony to a jury in the courtroom.

Yet nevertheless the media has repeated this singular lie as if it were the unassailable truth.

Prosecutors have a license to lie. It is not a stretch to see who was behind that lie.

Not once has Penn State ever paused to reflect on the established ethics, honesty and integrity of Tim, Gary, Graham & Joe – instead you chose to question and disbelieve.

Perhaps you should seriously question the ethics, honesty and integrity of Frank Fina.

RESPECT: We respect and honor the dignity of each person and embrace civil discourse.

Civil discourse ceased the moment John Surma stepped over Steve Garban’s body to ax Joe in an ill-timed, late night press conference carrying out a personal vendetta.

Civil discourse was replaced by verbal and physical harassment, death threats, vandalism and horribly flawed, sensationalist reporting in a media stampede.

Respecting the honor and dignity of Joe, Tim, Gary, Graham, the Lettermen, the student/athletes and the Penn State community at large, vaporized when a former prosecutor with a License To Lie indicted and smeared us all on July 12th, 2012.

Fina and Freeh chose to dishonor by selectively leaking to the media, even including a few Board members to carry out their deeds.

I ask that you respect and restore that honor to these people and their families and you insist on civil discourse by the media and the public.

Frank Fina and his fellow gunslingers in the Office of Attorney General reigned with fear & intimidation. It meant there were no holds barred on anybody who worked there.

These same prosecutorial bullying tactics were used to silence and discredit Tim Curley and Gary Schultz – suppressing evidence, falsely charging them and corruptly cooking up a scheme to charge Graham Spanier.

Appallingly, your own General Counsel helped with the deception.

Frank Fina’s email scandal of #hategate and #porngate has ripped open a constitutional crisis in our commonwealth.

It has exposed a network that ascribes to core values of Intimidation, Misconduct, Malfeasance, Dishonesty & Deceit.

A set of values that are antithetical to the values of Penn State.

Values that have destroyed lives, livelihoods and reputations, and shaken the very core of the community.

Is this our new standard?

Bethel's "Unverified" is a must see

2016-02-14T09:15:00.000-05:00

Bradley Bethel's "Unverified" documents another case of media sensationalism leading to innocent people being scapegoated -- while UNC puts political correctness and expediency above common decency.

By
Ray Blehar

The media soundbites and headlines said....."fraudulent paper classes"...."no show classes"...."no show classes for athletes"....."an iconic program gone bad"....and the "longest running cheating scandal in NCAA history"

What went on at the University of North Carolina (UNC)- Chapel Hill -- in terms of media sensationalism -- was on par with the inappropriately labeled, Penn State sex scandal.

And that is why Unverified is a must see for all Penn Staters.

Bradley Bethel, a former academic counselor at UNC, adeptly lays out how the media sensationalized a false story, resulting in a so-called independent investigation with a pre-determined outcome. In the end, innocent people were scapegoated so that the school could put the scandal behind them.

Sound familiar?

At UNC, the administration came down hard on lowly academic counselors, firing those who were actually helping the athletes with their studies. It also fired two other administrators, but certainly put no blame on those who created the problem.

No Show Classes
"No show classes," CBS's Scott Pelley sternly stated as he stared into the camera.

Yes, no show classes, Scott. Welcome to the world of on-line education.

On-line courses, while not requiring attendance at a "brick and mortar" building, do require considerable work. PSU has a World Campus full of "no show classes" offering a variety of degrees. Some of the classes are quite difficult. There are Universities, such as the University of Phoenix, who specialize in "no show" classes (a.k.a, on-line learning).

Most of the UNC athletes enrolled in the "no show" classes did required reading, took on-line quizzes, and wrote papers. The UNC athletic counselors helped students, but didn't do work for them.

However, the media covering wasn't interested in finding out the facts...

Ganim's reporting on the UNC and PSU cases were based on unreliable, biased sources.

...they had a source named Mary Willingham. And as we saw in the Penn State case, it was a source whose story was too good to check.

UNVERIFIED

A January 2014 CNN report by Ganim relied extensively on Mary Willingham's "research" which allegedly found 183 athletes reading between the 4th and 8th grade level. Willingham, adding fuel to the fire, claimed she turned a blind eye to cheating and NCAA violations.

But, Willingham's study was not peer reviewed.

Her allegations of cheating and NCAA violations were unchecked.

In a word, Willingham's work was UNVERIFIED.

Ganim and the rest of the media didn't let facts stand in the way of a good story.

McDonald's and Swahili

The stories -- and that's what they mostly were -- of student athletes abusing the system were sensationalized.

As one UNC professor put it, "it was not a time for compassion."

ESPN painted Deaunte Williams as a "fast food worker" who was exploited by North Carolina's paper class curriculum when the real story was he took out a loan and built his own restaurant and employs people.

He is, to quote, "a job giver" and "not a poor black kid who works at McDonald's."

Amazingly, just one year earlier, ESPN did a feature on Williams, that showed he was a successful entrepreneur, homeowner, and volunteer football coach.

Joe Nocera of the New York Times wrote, Football and Swahili, in which he took shots at the idea that football players were taking Swahili. In the article, he misquoted Williams, alleging that the former football player said 100% of freshman football players took Swahili.

Williams actually took Portuguese -- and flat out said he was misquoted.

Nocera wouldn't entertain a discussion the misquote.

Similary, Bernard Goldberg, looked down his nose at a former UNC athlete who took Swahili, asking him how often he used it. The athlete responded never, to which Goldberg reacted with disgust.

Of course, no one cared about "the other side" of the story.

When the African American (AFAM) curriculum was developed the proponents of it believed native African languages should be used rather than other foreign languages, like Spanish or French. It made sense then and it makes sense now. That was the reason why football players enrolled in AFAM were taking Swahili.

But it's too much to expect the media to figure it out.

And that's another reason why Bradley Bethel's Unverified is a must see.

Political Correctness Run Amok

Imagine the blow back from the politically correct if UNC eliminated Swahili because it's not particularly useful to know.

That gets us to the bottom of the so-called UNC Cheating Scandal.

Former Governor Jim Martin investigated the UNC paper classes back in 2012 and correctly found that the problem was a lack of oversight of the AFAM department by the academic side of the school. Many of the classes were "aberrant" or "irregularly taught" from 2007 to 2011.

"The athletic department, coaches and players did not create this," Martin told the board of trustees. "It was not in their jurisdiction, it was the academic side."

Chancellor James Moeser said that UNC felt that they were helping minority students who were not quite as adept academically to get through their studies and graduate.

When the media began fanning the flames about a cheating scandal in 2013, the administrators claimed no knowledge of what was happening in AFAM and pulled out the "corporate crisis playbook."

Wainstein Report

UNC hired a high profile lawyer, Kenneth Wainstein, to perform an independent investigation.

Wainstein Report's had a pre-determined outcome that would begin the public cleansing.

Much like the Freeh Report, Wainstein's Report would form the basis for the public cleansing. There would be a few sacrificial lambs -- academic counselors Beth Bridger and Jaimie Lee, among others -- but those who caused the problem were not be held accountable.

It was a big time athletics problem. Everyone knew it.

The media didn't need to read the Wainstein Report -- they wrote it.

Fired coach Butch Davis quite aptly summed up the Wainstein Report: "tie it up and put a bow on it, blame him, kick football to the curb and move on."

Sound familiar?

A Voice of Reason

Once again, ESPN's Jay Bilas was a voice of reason. He properly assessed the problem was academics, not athletics. He pointed out that no coach can establish a class and a coach assumes if a class is offered, it's legitimate.

If this went on for 20 years -- and the majority taking classes were not athletes -- then where were the checks and balances on the academic side?

Should athletics role to be to question the academics of an institution?

Cue Joe Paterno, circa 1983!

Truth, Healing, and Hope

Bethel finally got a chance to interview one of the high ranking adminstrators, Chancellor James Moeser.

Moeser admitted that a "case can be made" that media pressure caused the University not to exercise "appropriate due process" and "rush to judgment."

Individuals were "harshly judged without all the evidence, without due process."

Those admissions of truth that can bring about the healing needed when a false narrative rips away at the fabric of an institution.

John Blanchard, UNC's senior associate athletic director, fired in the scandal's wake provides an uplifting -- and somewhat familiar message -- near the end of Bethel's film.

"Don't drop out of the story and be bitter and resentful. Keep going. Enjoy life. Remember the best days are ahead when we will be able to help others."

But it was Blanchard's other message that resonated most with me.

"Have faith in the end of the story, even if you don't know what that story is going to be."

The film is a must see...and Bethel hopes to bring Unverified to State College.

Wendy Silverwood Files Complaint Aganst Fina

2016-02-05T21:32:00.004-05:00

To file a complaint with the PA Disciplinary Board - visit this link: http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/...

Larry Schultz: Chronicle commentary

2016-01-28T21:56:00.000-05:00

Trust is reciprocal. I can love you, but that does not mean you will love me. You might hate me, but that does not necessarily mean I will hate you.

But if you do not trust me, I am very unlikely to trust you. If you ask me to make a list of all the people I do not trust, I would begin by making a list of those who do not trust me. Masser publicly speaks the language of distrust about his fellow trustees. In the Chronicle, no less.

If the PSU BoT is riven by distrust, then it is the job of leadership to rebuild the broken trust. Given an opportunity to reach out, in even a tiny way, to the other side, in a publication devoted to Higher Ed topics, so that plenty of people who work in universities all over the country can read it, Masser punts. He believes that the way I will begin to trust him is by getting over it, by "moving on," by ignoring the massive failures of leadership he and his friends enacted, like he does.

That is not going to work for me, for thousands of other Penn Staters, for the Alumni Trustees he despises so much, or for the good of PSU. The Board Mr. Masser runs is now made up of people who ignored the blooming Jerry Sandusky matter until it blew up in their faces. Some of them left over the last few years, but were replaced by virtual clones, selected by organizations which know for a fact that running PSU in secret, with hidden agendas instead of transparency, is best for them.

Mr. Eckel seems to think the bottom line reason why we got caught flatfooted in the Sandusky case is because we did not have enough committees. "If anything, he says, the Sandusky scandal demonstrated that Penn State needed more committees, including audit and risk, and people of diverse experience were required to lead them." I guess the idea is that if we had more committees maybe someone would have passed the word when we had a warning a week or ten days before the indictments were handed down that it was coming. Maybe had a meeting to talk about it. You know, rather than Garban and Surma and Broadhurst simply sitting on it.

Having never publicly admitted that there was any problem with the failure to act, there is zero likelihood that in the over 100 Freeh recommendations they claim to have implemented there is anything that solves that problem. If anything, the instincts of the Board are worse, more closed off, more akin to a dictatorship than ever before. Which means this could happen to PSU again tomorrow.

When a person assumes fiduciary duties s/he undertakes to do whatever is necessary within the law to protect the beneficiary (in this case, PSU). Suppose you sit on a board in 2010 and you find out that in the 1990s some contracts were let to the relatives of a Board member without competitive bidding, and you hear an allegation that there were kickbacks to a Board member. You do not have to call a press conference, but you have to find out if it is true and determine whether it is still going on. It is the basic and prudent thing to do to protect PSU.

Today the Alumni Trustees need to know whether the University spent $8+ million on a report that is untrue. We need to know because based upon that report, with little review and no vote of the board membership, the University torched its own reputation. You cannot pretend that did not happen. The Alumni Trustees have a clear fiduciary duty to investigate this fateful waste of the University's assets. To deny them the records of the Freeh Report is to deny them the tools to do the job the law requires them to do. To make them pay their own lawyers to find out the truth in the service of their fiduciary duty is likely an untenable position for the University.

"Where’s the decision that we’re going to make that’s based on the Freeh report?" asks Mr. Barron, Penn State’s president. "It’s hard to see that there is one."

How about a decision regarding whether we wasted $8+ million on a report full of falsehoods which injured the University? How about an after-action report regarding the sloppy, slow, ad hoc nature of the entire response to Sandusky? Those seem like worthwhile endeavors to me. Of course, the construction of Barron's question is interesting. Of course there is no decision anyone is going to base on the Freeh Report, because everyone knows it is a bad report, even those who studiously ignore that fact. That is why we have to study it--so there can no longer be any question about what a colossal tragedy it is.

The central thesis of the Chronicle article is that there is no trust on the PSU Board. Masser's and Eckel's comments show that to be undeniable. The rather simple fix is to build trust, but their comments rule that out.

The decision we are going to make based on the Freeh Report, Dr. Barron, is whether and how the University might have done a better job of confronting this disaster. More committees? In a word, no. We are not going to have a quarter billion dollars to waste on this stuff every couple of years. Perhaps seeing how we made these mistakes will cause us not to repeat them. The only thing stopping us from repeating them right now is there is (apparently) no Jerry Sandusky operating in our midst. Of course, that is what we thought when there was a Jerry Sandusky operating in our midst.

Larry Schultz is a candidate for the Penn State Board of Trustees

About That Oath

2016-01-27T22:01:00.001-05:00

Much like in the case of the PSU 3, the critical evidence supporting AG Kane's perjury charges is of questionable origin.

Ray Blehar

The PA Corruption Network's Playbook, (December 29, 2015) outlined how corrupt prosecutors use dubious evidence to make cases against targets.

For the PSU 3, it was emails of dubious provenance that provided the (alleged) evidence of perjury and other crimes.

Ferman's smoking gun will be undone

For Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Kane, it was an oath of similarly dubious provenance that is now being portrayed by the Corruption Network as the smoking gun evidence against Kane.

Let's rewind the clock and see how that went down.

On August 6, 2015, then Montgomery County District Attorney, Risa Ferman threw more than her fair share of admiration toward the investigators and prosecutors -- who regurgitated much of the evidence from the grand jury --to craft the initial Kane charges.

"The investigators and prosecutors alike, they were meticulous. They were thorough. They were detailed, and this investigation was as comprehensive as any we've ever done."

According to the August charging documents, Kane had allegedly committed perjury and false swearing regarding four things she stated under oath (see below).

The evidence supporting the allegations was mostly based on the testimony of Bruce Beemer, James Barker, and Adrian King -- all of whom seemingly have motivations to take down AG Kane.

As is typically the case with prosecutor's documents, evidence in favor of the prosecutor's version of events (e.g., Kane is lying and leaked information to get back at Fina) is included while the evidence against is excluded.

But no matter how much the charging documents talk around the subject of who leaked the grand jury information, the fact is that Ferman admitted she couldn't directly link AG Kane to the documents released.

After that, all the rest is bluster.

That's why Ferman needed something else...

Ferman's investigators and prosecutors weren't as thorough as she said they were

The Secrecy Oath

On September 17, 2015, Ferman's "meticulous" gang of investigators made a visit to an undisclosed office in Strawberry Square and allegedly found an oath that they had not previously found in their other (meticulous and thorough) forays into the AG's office.

To be fair, the investigators were probably searching for a document that looked somewhat official and were likely thrown off by the very unofficial secrecy oath document.

The allegedly official "SECRECY OATH" document is about as official looking as Saddam Hussein's "Baby Milk Plant" sign that was fabricated and planted after his chemical weapons facility was bombed.

Prior to the stunning discovery of the oath, the "meticulous" investigative team was seemingly content to use the grand jury testimony (page 15) of James Barker to allege Kane lied about not being covered by secrecy regarding the Mondesire grand jury.

Barker,who was called to testify on three occasions, stated that there is an implied ongoing obligation to keep grand jury information secret even after the grand jury is no longer in session.

Consistent with Barker's testimony, Kane testified that she had all of those newly hired by her office sign grand jury secrecy oaths for ongoing grand juries but not oaths for prior grand juries.

Six weeks later, the Ferman investigators got a tip to take another look into they previously searched.

Anonymous tip. Where have we heard that before?

After finding the oath, King, among others, corroborated the meeting took place and oaths were signed. The actual language in the presentation, however, is deceptive because neither King nor anyone else made any specific reference to signing oaths pertaining to previous grand juries.

Given the PA Corruption Network's history with the PSU 3 case, it's not going out on a limb to float the idea that the oath document and related information were fabricated and planted.

Kane and Shargel: Didn't crumble when
faced with dubious evidence about oath

Part of the Network's playbook is to present surprise evidence to the unsuspecting targets (and their attorneys), who believe that their legal adversaries are actually playing by the rules. In that moment, the network's attorneys hope that the target or his/her legal counsel believe they have been caught red-handed and opt for a plea deal.

That didn't happen with Kane, just like the "flip" -- that Fina hoped for -- didn't happen in the PSU 3 case.

The 2009 oath is hardly a smoking gun -- it's more like a boomerang.

A boomerang that will eventually come back and strike Judge Risa Vetri Ferman.

The PACN's Grand Jury Abuses -- and More

2016-01-24T21:28:00.001-05:00

The Pennsylvania Corruption Network (PACN) uses the grand jury system as a sword and a shield.

Ray Blehar

As mentioned in the PA Corruption Network's Playbook (January 1, 2016), when the PACN feels threatened or that they may be exposed for their own heinous acts, they use the court system to charge others with crimes (deflecting attention away from them).

The cases of the PSU 3 and current PA Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane were examples of how the playbook works -- and both cases were instances of using the grand jury system as a sword.

Conversely, the Sandusky case and some current activities in Centre County show how the PACN uses the grand jury system as a shield.

Secrecy as a Sword

The Kane grand jury leak investigation appears to be the PACN using the system as a sword.

But before explaining that, let's wind back the clock.

Judge Barry Feudale oversaw the Bonusgate and Sandusky grand juries, while Frank Fina prosecuted the trials. Both grand juries had issues with leaks to the press, but no "leakers" were ever identified. And no grand juries were established to investigate the leaks.

The Kane case, however, was an entirely different matter in terms of results.

A grand jury was convened to investigate the leaks. It moved at lightning speed to quickly find that here was probable cause to charge the AG with contempt for leaking grand jury information, obstruction of justice for orchestrating the leaks, official oppression, perjury (part of the playbook), and false swearing.

However, before the grand jury's conclusions were reached, it was being used a sword by -- of course -- leaking damaging information about Kane to the press.

In September 2014, the existence of the secret grand jury was reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer's was Angela Couloumbus and Craig McCoy. The column was heavily biased toward Fina's and other former AG officials version of events, including the recitation of part of an irrelevant email, purported to be smoking gun evidence, sent to Kane by Adrian King.

Not so ironically, these are the same reporters who were leaked secret court documents by Judge Barry Feudale.

In January 2015, Couloumbus and McCoy again reported of the impending decision by the grand jury to recommend charges of contempt and perjury against Kane. They were later subpoenaed by Judge Carpenter to testify about the leaks. The Inquirer stated both would invoke the Shield Law to protect their sources.

Of course, there was no uproar to find out who was leaking to McCoy and Couloumbus -- even though part of the rationale for invoking the Shield Law was because they were exposing the "wrong-doing" of public officials (i.e., Kane). As if another public official, say Frank Fina of the Philly DA's office or one of his associates there, couldn't have been behind the leaks.

When all was said and done, the investigation by then Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Fetri Vermin found that Kane didn't leak protected grand jury information.

But the damage had already been done to Kane by the PACN's wielding of the grand jury sword.

Secrecy as a Shield

To understand how the PACN uses grand jury secrecy as a shield, the Moulton investigation is instructive.

In 2012, then-AG candidate Kane campaigned that if elected, she would look into the Sandusky matter. After winning by a landslide, Kane made good on her promise the day she took office.

Given the evidence of Fina's, Baldwin's and Feudale's grand jury chicanery, it's not a stretch to think that they had concerns about what the investigation might uncover.

As a result, these preemptive strikes followed.

First, in February 2013, Feudale appointed a former AG Corbett appointee, James Reeder, to conduct investigations into the Sandusky leaks and leaks emanating from the grand jury of suspected mobster, Louis A. DeNaples. It was likely that Feudale did so knowing that Reeder would shield any potentially damaging information from those grand juries from being accessed by the Kane (eventually Moulton) investigation.

Next, in March 2013, anonymous sources alleged to be former AG attorneys and agents threatened to go public if Moulton's report was overly critical of their investigation or was factually inaccurate.

Moulton Report: Inexplicable delays in obtaining search warrants and identifying victims.

Moulton's Report seemingly went soft on Fina and his cohorts, stating it was within his prosecutorial discretion to use a grand jury to investigate the case. However, at the press conference announcing the report, Moulton called the delays in obtaining search warrants and other investigative steps to be "inexplicable."

In response, Corbett spokesperson Jay Pagni stated "It was a thorough, thoughtful investigation" that resulted in taking Sandusky off the street.

But the facts show Corbett was wrong. The investigation wasn't thoughtful or thorough. The AG's investigation clearly ignored leads that would have taken it to The Second Mile's (TSM) doorstep and to more victims immediately.

According to the evidence in the Moulton Report, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) interviewed Aaron Fisher, Steve Turchetta, Central Mountain High School (CMHS) students F.P and F.A, and volunteer wrestling coach Joseph Miller by January 21st, 2009. All of them told the police that Sandusky's connection to children was TSM.

Due to various jurisdiction issues and conflicts, the case was then transferred from Clinton County, to Centre County, then to Corbett's AG office in March 2009.

On March 17th, DAG Jonelle Eshbach received the PSP report on the case, but after that, no subsequent action occurred until May 1st, when the AG inexplicably recommended the case be taken up by an investigating grand jury (GJ).

From May 1, 2009 until January 28, 2011, the investigation steered clear of TSM. On the 28th, it finally issued a subpoena to the charity -- but only for Sandusky's employment and travel records.

The GJ didn't issue a subpoena for names of TSM participants (children) until March 24th, 2011. That delay, hypothetically gave TSM officials ample time to dispose of any incriminating evidence, including (possibly) silencing of the most important witnesses.

Given the evidence above, it is highly probable that the AG was avoiding TSM because whatever was going on inside or around it in Centre County had the potential of causing repercussions in Harrisburg -- and possibly other places.

The Sandusky grand jury investigation ensured the lid stayed on whatever was happening at the charity.

Lock Down In State College

Until the publication of Don Van Natta's "The Whistleblower's Last Stand," little was known about the alleged anonymous email tip that identified Mike McQueary as a possible witness to Sandusky's abuse.

The ESPN article revealed the tip was allegedly sent to Centre County DA Stacy Parks Miller on November 3, 2010 -- the day after then-AG Tom Corbett won the gubernatorial election.

Coincidence? Likely not.

As noted in Ferman Presser: Lies, Contradictions, and Ethics Violations (January 6, 2016), the PACN includes men, women, prosecutors, judges, and political operatives across the state.

Parks Miller had her share of issues of late, including alleged foot-dragging on the sexual abuse investigation of Christopher Lee, ex parte communications with Judge Bradley Lunsford, and was accused of forging a judge's signature on a court order.

Fortunately for Parks Miller, the grand jury system bailed her out on the forgery accusation. On July 31, 2015, whomever the special prosecutor was found there wasn't enough evidence to charge Miller -- and so said the grand jury.

Just days after the decision, Parks-Miller petitioned to convene an investigating grand jury "to consider at least one unsolved murder, and a recent series of other cases the scope of which cannot be determined without the powers granted to a county investigating grand jury."

Parks Miller's petition stated that unsolved disappearances, corrupt organizations, and drug trafficking cases could be assigned to the grand jury.

Few doubt that the unsolved disappearance reference is to former DA Ray Gricar, who disappeared in 2005.

In 2010, then Centre Daily Times reporter, Sara Ganim, wrote that Parks Miller's office would be conducting a review of the case. Parks Miller related that she was confident the Bellefonte Police Department (BPD) was actively investigating the case.

Three years later, the PSP announced it was taking over the case from the BPD. Now it appears the investigation is being taken out of their hands by the actions of Parks Miller and otherwise protected from an investigation by shuttling the case to another grand jury.

But one has to wonder why the Commonwealth didn't do more sooner about the Gricar disappearance.

Network Connections

When the Sandusky scandal broke, the media connected the April 2005 disappearance of former DA Ray Gricar to "unanswered questions" about why he didn't charge Sandusky in 1998.

The reason the media couldn't figure it out was because the Sandusky grand jury presentment omitted that the PA Department of Public Welfare (DPW) didn't make an abuse finding. That decision essentially precluded Gricar from charging, according to retired PSU Detective Ronald Schreffler.

It is also notable that the presentment didn't even mention that Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) was involved in the 1998 investigation. Contrary to what was written in the Freeh Report about CC CYS recusing itself from the investigation in early May, it remained involved until May 27th.

In summary, the Sandusky grand jury presentment (and later, the Freeh Report) was used as a shield to hide the failures of the DPW and CC CYS to protect children from Sandusky. Conversely, its sword came out when it falsely saddled the PSU police and Ray Gricar with the responsibility of deciding the 1998 case.

But, the PACN may have been doing more than hiding the failures of child protective services when it put forth the false story about 1998. It was likely protecting itself.

Corbett didn't put Fina
on the Ray Gricar case

When Ray Gricar went missing on April 15, 2005, then-AG Tom Corbett didn't seem overly concerned about it.

Instead of Corbett calling on the PSP, the AG's criminal investigation division, or better yet, forming a task force to investigate the case, he let it stay in the care of the little BPD. Obviously, the BPD could not marshal the resources that the PSP, AG, or a task force could.

About a year later, on February 28, 2006, Corbett announced the formation of a new Public Corruption Unit, rationalizing its need because Pennsylvania had legalized slots and casinos. Corbett also noted the legislature formed an independent, elected AG's office in 1978 in order to fight public corruption.

In what now seems like a fox watching the hen house move, Corbett named Frank Fina to be the chief of the new anti-corruption section.

Interestingly enough, Fina was the AG's head of the criminal investigation division in 2005. As Fina has been lauded by the media for his prowess, one has to wonder why Tom Corbett didn't tag him to lead the Gricar investigation.

It gets better.

Some of the others assigned to the Public Corruption Unit were:

Patrick Blessington and Mark Costanza, two attorneys who would eventually be snared in the "porngate" case;

Jonelle Eshbach, who led the Sandusky investigation and then hot footed it out of town; and,

James Reeder, who Barry Feudale assigned to investigate the grand jury leak cases related to Sandusky and suspected mobster and casino owner Louis A. DeNaples.

As any prosecutor will tell you, too many coincidences are not a good thing for criminal defendants or for targets of conspiracy and corruption investigations.

While the media scoffed at Kane's suggestion that a corrupt "old boy's network" was out to get her, it appears she may have been right. All that's missing to prove Kane's case that the network has it out for her is the "smoking gun" evidence.

I'm willing to wager that evidence will be of the email variety.

Coming Up:

About That Oath

PSU 3 and JUSTICE Won Partial Victory Today

2016-01-22T22:51:00.002-05:00

Today's superior court ruling quashed some of the perjury, obstruction, and conspiracy charges for the PSU 3 and noted former AG prosecutor Frank Fina's unethical behavior

By
Ray Blehar

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court released opinions that quashed several charges against former Penn State University (PSU) officials Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier.

Baldwin "incompetent to testify"

The Court ruled that former PSU Counsel Cynthia Baldwin "was incompetent to testify" regarding privileged communications with the PSU 3. Moreover, the Court ruled that none of the men were "properly represented by Ms. Baldwin" during their grand jury testimony as agents of the University.

As a result of the violations of Baldwin, testimony given under her representation is not admissible. As such, the perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy charges against Schultz and Spanier were quashed. One count of perjury against Curley remained (because he did not raise the issue in his appeal), while the other two counts were quashed.

All three men still face a misdemeanor charge of failure to report child abuse and two felony counts for endangering the welfare of children (EWOC), and one count of conspiracy to endanger the welfare of children.

Today's ruling did not address the merits of the remaining charges, however, they too will eventually be dismissed. None of the men were mandated reporters in 2001 nor would they be included under the law today even with the revisions to the law after the Sandusky scandal.

Additionally, the criteria for a conviction on EWOC would almost be impossible for the Commonwealth to prove.

Schultz attorney Tom Farrell noted: .

"I think the Lynn case creates real problems for the

prosecution. Further, I think this case is a much weaker

case than the Lynn case, specifically in terms of whether any

of the defendants were in a position where they had

supervisory responsibilities over children or over other

individuals who had supervisory responsibility over

children."

"PA Corruption Network" Receives A Blow

Former prosecutor Fina called out for "highly improper" conduct in the matter

While today was a partial victory for the PSU 3 - and Penn Staters - it was also a partial victory for justice.

All three opinions noted that Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina's conduct was "highly improper" for improperly compelling Baldwin to testify against the PSU 3 without proper approval and for misleading Judge Feudale.

Feudale: "no babe in the woods."

Apparently the courts tended to ignore the fact that Judge Feudale is "no babe in the woods" either. He was already tossed off the bench for his lack of judicial objectivity.

It is also notable that Feudale also had a long history in overseeing child abuse cases.

The evidence in the PSU 3 case indicates that he and Fina may have suppressed the PSU email evidence in order to charge the PSU 3 with failure to report child abuse and obstruction of justice.

It's not going out on a limb to think that Feudale turned a blind eye to Fina's misconduct.

PSU explicitly stated to Fina that it did not waive privilege that existed between Baldwin and the PSU 3. Moreover, Fina told Judge Feudale he would not question Baldwin about privileged matters.

After making that statement to Judge Feudale, a significant amount of the questioning of Baldwin regarded confidential communications.

Fina has been lauded by the PA media as a corruption fighter due to his prosecutions of the Bonusgate and Computergate show trials.

Today, the curtain began to be pulled back. The PA Corruption Network's abuse of the grand jury system and courts is being exposed.

In closing, what does that say about those who are questioning AG Kane's selection of Maryland attorney Douglas Gansler to look into all matters around the email evidence?

Next: Grand Jury Abuses

PS4RS Press Statement on PA Superior Court Ruling

2016-01-22T17:05:00.001-05:00

PRESS STATEMENT (my emphasis added)

PA Superior Court Ruling Upends Case Against Penn State Admins

January 22, 2016 —— Members of Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship are pleased with today’s ruling by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania resulting in the dismissal of multiple charges against Penn State administrators. The ruling dismisses the charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy against Penn State administrators Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier. But we are not finished. All we have asked since November 2011 is for due process for everyone involved. Unfortunately, the Penn State Board of Trustees, their hired gun Louis Freeh, and the opportunistic NCAA all ignored the concept that is the very foundation of our country. Each rushed to judgment and in the process impugned loyal, respectable, generous and -- most of all -- innocent men. The court overturned the despicable violation of these men’s constitutional rights by the Office of the Attorney General in collusion with former Penn State trustee and Counsel Cynthia Baldwin. Their actions have cost the state's flagship university hundreds of millions of dollars and caused untold anguish for hundreds of thousands of Penn State alumni and supporters.

It is a travesty that Jerry Sandusky and his use of The Second Mile to prey on at-risk children was not identified sooner by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. It is inexcusable that he was not promptly indicted by then-Attorney General Tom Corbett and his deputy, Frank Fina. As we have contended from Day One, this was never a Penn State problem. It was – and still very much is -- a state of Pennsylvania problem.

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS), with more than 40,000 members nationwide, was formed to promote positive change within the University Board of Trustees, demanding transparent, trustworthy leadership. For further information on PS4RS, please visitwww.PS4RS.org, email ps4rsinfo@ps4rs.org, or go tohttp://www.facebook.com/PS4RS. Follow PS4RS on Twitter at @PS4RS

Ferman Presser: Lies, Contradictions, & Ethics Violations

2016-01-06T23:20:00.001-05:00

Then-Montgomery County DA Risa Ferman's August 2015 press conference contained lies and contradictions

By
Ray Blehar

On December 29th, I wrote that step #5 of the PA Corruption Network's Playbook was for prosecutors to go public with trumped up charges based on questionable evidence and/or falsehoods in order to publicly smear political opponents.

Then-DA Risa Ferman's August 6, 2015 press conference -- like those given by former Attorney General (AG) Linda Kelly in relation to charging PSU officials Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier -- was a page out of the "playbook" and contained a number of falsehoods.

Lies

Vermin's, er, Ferman's statements regarding the actions of AG's Kane's head of security, Patrick Rocco Reese, were absolutely false and were likely made in an attempt to establish a non-existent link between grand jury information and Kane.

At 9:29:

"Also filed today, we filed a charge of indirect criminal contempt against Patrick Rocco Reese....he's charged with indirect criminal contempt based upon the evidence we gathered which would prove he secretly snuck into the grand jury files in violation of a protection order issued by Judge Carpenter."

At 10:16:

"After that protection order was issued, Agent Reese, on a repeated basis, snuck into those grand jury files and obtained confidential grand jury information."

Reese was charged with Violation of a Protective Order, however the supporting evidence in no way proved that any grand jury information was ever in the possession of Reese.

Protective Order Notice #123 stated that all grand jury information was retained by Supervising Judge William Carpenter and Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio, thus could not have been accessed by an email search of the AG Office's email system -- regardless of whether Reese "snuck" into the files or not.

The "secretly snuck" language in Ferman's statements are solely based on the dubious testimony of the actual grand jury leaker, Adrian King.

Reese was convicted -- by Judge Carpenter, not a jury -- for using email search terms that prosecutors alleged were attempts to find out information about the grand jury investigation of Kane. Reese is rightfully appealing the conviction.

But Ferman didn't stop there.

As we saw in the case of the PSU 3, the law was misinterpreted (intentionally) to allege that Kane was behind the "scheme" to leak confidential materials.

At 6:00, Ferman stated:

The materials gathered and distributed in the course of this scheme were confidential investigative materials. And confidential investigative information is protected in Pennsylvania by a statute. It's called the Criminal History Records and Information Act. In law enforcement we refer to it as the acronym, "cree-ah", C-H-R-I-A and it is detailed in the charging documents.

First, Kane wasn't charged with violating CHRIA. Next, neither the grand jury presentment nor the charging documents contain any details about CHRIA. The grand jury presentment made two references to CHRIA that simply cited its title and code.

Ferman deceived the public by never explaining the law (in the AOPC) and by using the irrelevant grand jury testimony of Adrian King to make the case that Kane released information covered under CHRIA. See below.

The alleged confidential material that was leaked to the press was a transcript -- compiled in 2014 -- by David Peifer, the Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Special Investigations. The transcript was not part of the AG's or any other criminal investigative file. Nor was it the result of any formal or informal criminal investigation or inquiry -- the legal requirement to be considered "investigation information" under CHRIA.

This evidence indicates that Ferman purposely misinterpreted the law (and deceived the public about it) in order to publicly allege a conspiracy by Kane.

Contradictions

Ferman's statements at the outset of her press conference about leaking of grand jury were contradicted later in the press conference.

At 4:37 Ferman stated:

"This investigative team determined that Attorney General Kathleen Kane devised a scheme to secretly leak confidential criminal investigation information and secret grand jury materials directly to political operatives in the hopes of embarrassing and harming former state prosecutors, whom she believed -- she believed without evidence -- that made her look bad.

The affidavit of probable cause, which is our charging document, you have before you, details how this scheme was accomplished and the crux of it was obtaining and compiling this confidential information, delivering it to a political operative with instructions to leak it to the press, all designed to make it look like a former prosecutor went soft on a corruption investigation."

At 24:20, Ferman refuted the earlier statement, explaining that Kane didn't compile and deliver the materials.

If you, if you read through the evidence that relates to the conspiracy charge, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow. So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy. What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."

As my January 1st blogpost pointed out, Ferman had no evidence of Kane possessing any grand jury materials at the time the Philadelphia Daily News story went to press, thus she was making material misstatements at the press conference.

Ethics?

In late December, the press reported that Kane is under investigation by the Ethics Commission based on a complaint lodged by a citizen activist.

Interestingly enough, concerned citizens of Pennsylvania could make an ethics case against Ferman for the extrajudicial statements she made at her press conference.

At 13:40:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a sad day for the citizens of Pennsylvania and it is a sad day for all of us in law enforcement. A prosecutor has the responsibility as a minister of justice, and when he or she does her job honorably - as we should - we honor our oath. We stand up and do what is right every day. When someone is entrusted with upholding the law, violates that oath and violates that law we are bound to uphold, we are all victims -- everyone of us. When an elected official violates the public trust and violates his or her oath, it is up to us to stand up and hold that person accountable.

Obviously, to tell all of Pennsylvania's citizens that they are victims of Kane is poisoning the jury pool and appears to be a "textbook" example of a prejudicial statement.

The flip side happened at 12:33:

I'd like to thank the staff members of the Office of the Attorney General - current and former. Members of the staff who displayed moral courage in standing up to share information they had. It takes tremendous courage to stand up and, in essence, tell on your boss. It's a hard thing to do. It takes personal courage. And they had it.  They took actions at great risk to themselves personally and professionally. And I thank them.

Heaping praise on the AG staff -- Commonwealth's witnesses - for their "moral courage" and "personal courage" also serves to prejudice the jury pool against Kane.

According to Ferman, the following individuals had moral courage and took great professional risk:

1. Adrian King -- the actual leaker of information who likely got immunity for putting the onus on Kane.

2. James Barker -- who oversaw the AG's "leaky" investigative grand jury unit and was fired due to the unit's performance.

3. Bruce Beemer - who will likely become the AG if Kane is removed. Talk about professional risk?

Around the 20 minute mark of the press conference, one (clueless) reporter asked Ferman,

"Do you have a membership card in the Good Old Boy's Network in Harrisburg?

She responded by saying:

"I don't think they've invited me."

Ferman was actually being truthful -- about Boys and Harrisburg.

The Good Old Boy's Network doesn't just include men and it's not just in Harrisburg -- it's all across Pennsylvania. One of the network's specialties is perverting the justice system to fit personal and/or political agendas.

The evidence in the Kane case strongly indicates that Montgomery County Judge, Risa Vetri Ferman used the Network's "playbook" and is part of the PA Corruption Network.

Next: About that oath.

Who Are The Leakers, Ms. Ferman?

2016-01-01T10:37:00.001-05:00

Among all of the bluster about AG Kathleen Kane's alleged orchestration of a grand jury leak, why didn't the media ask Risa Ferman for the name of the leaker?

By
Ray Blehar

According to Montgomery County District Attorney (DA) Risa Ferman and the media, Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane has committed the crime of the century by allegedly orchestrating a leak of grand jury information.

The crazy thing about all of this bluster (over Kane) is that information from grand juries and criminal investigations are leaked with regularity to the press. At Ferman's press conference, one (honest) reporter more or less asked Ferman what the big deal was about the leaks.

The fact is that the media rarely, if ever, treats leak cases with any seriousness at all -- unless it involves someone they want to take down.

Pardon me while I reminisce back to the case of CIA employee, Valerie Plame...

...the media was in a lather to see Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney "perp-walked" out of the White House for leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA agent. The media waited in great anticipation for the results of the special investigation and when it happened it was a non-event. Neither Rove nor Cheney were found responsible. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, was not charged and received little to no media attention.

As it turned out, the investigation ended up charging an underling in Cheney's office named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Like Kane, Libby didn't leak information that was subject to secrecy rules. And, much like Kane, he got caught in a perjury trap and was found guilty of that and lesser charges.

About 8 minutes in to Ferman's press conference, she announced the full list of charges -- which did not allege Kane leaked grand jury information. Instead, Ferman charged her with conspiracy.

The press conference was almost over before any reporter asked a question that came close to getting at the identity of the persons or person behind the leaks, however, the question was more like an accusation -- that Kane's head of her security detail, Patrick Reese, was involved in the conspiracy with Kane.

In order to clear the matter up, Ferman responded by giving an explanation of what a conspiracy is.

"If you read through the evidence, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow. So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy. What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."

Ferman: Claims conspiracy is an "act of all," but doesn't charge leaker, co-conspirators.

So after hearing Ferman's explanation of a conspiracy, the press naturally asked who else was involved, right?

Nope.

King: Leaked information but wasn't charged

The next question was: "If Kane is convicted of these crimes, should she lose her law license?"

Clearly, the media really doesn't care who the leaked grand jury information or that grand jury information was leaked at all. It certainly hasn't spent any time at all demanding answers about James Reeder's investigation into the Sandusky and DeNaples grand jury leaks.

And if leaking grand jury information was such a terrible crime and betrayal of public trust, then why didn't Risa Ferman charge the leaker -- Adrian King?

The evidence in the grand jury presentment clearly shows the grand jury information (i.e., the 2009 memorandum and emails) was provided to Josh Morrow by Adrian King.

Morrow testified that King left a clasped envelope containing a manila folder for him to retrieve. The manila folder's contents included the 2009 memo, two emails, and the Miletto transcript. Under the grand jury act, the 2009 memo, and perhaps the two emails, were subject to grand jury secrecy rules. The transcript was not.

Going backwards in time, King testified that a plain (unmarked) sealed envelope was left on his desk (by someone) and that he took it with him to Philadelphia and provided it to Morrow.

The evidence in the grand jury presentment (paragraph one below) clearly shows that AG Kane did not have the 2009 memo and/or the emails in her possession until 24 July 2014, thus could not have placed it in the unmarked envelope for King.

However, that didn't stop prosecutors from trying to make it look like Kane put in the memo and emails in the "packet" -- not envelope -- for King (paragraph 2) that was eventually released to the press. But the fact is being aware of a document and discussing it does not equal evidence of possession of the document.

Unless you believe in time travel, the grand jury found no evidence that Kane put the 2009 memorandum and emails in the envelope for King.

Let's review:

April 22, 2014: King found a sealed UNMARKED envelope which -- according to sworn testimony -- he believed contained campaign information for Morrow.

April 23, 2014: Morrow received a clasped envelope from King that contained a manila folder -- "packet" -- with the word JOSH written on it. Within that manila folder -- "packet" -- was the 2009 memorandum and emails.

June 6, 2014: Chris Brennan's Philadelphia Daily News article containing information from the 2009 memorandum went to press.

July 25, 2014: An email was sent to AG Kane that included the 2009 memorandum and the emails as attachments.

The timeline of the evidence speaks for itself. What was allegedly left for King was not the same package that King delivered to Morrow. And if King was the only person to possess the packet, then he added the 2009 memorandum and the emails.

Let me go out on a limb here and guess that Adrian King testified under a grant of immunity and that is why he wasn't charged.

The only question that remains is if anyone else from the AG's office conspired to leak this information (to undermine AG Kane) and who they are.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Risa Ferman's "ongoing investigation" to identify those individuals.

Up next: Luckily, Ferman wasn't under oath at her August press conference

Best Wishes for a Happy & Truthful New Year!