Dr. Barron: A letter about your Freeh Report 'review'

Dear President Barron,

On Friday you announced that you would conduct your own review of the raw materials that went into the creation of the Freeh Report. Clearly you are responding to the many calls over the last two years to analyze the report, however I must caution you that this attempt you are making is only destined to fail for the exact same reasons the Freeh Report itself did. The internal, secretive nature of your review is the exact issue which got us here in the first place.

Almost immediately after it's release many critical reviews noticed that Mr. Freeh had taken liberties with his conclusions, omitted key information, and flat out lied. It was quite clear from the moment you pick up this report that it was fatally flawed from the start. One has to look no further than the Appendices where Mr. Freeh can't count to ten correctly; omitting Exhibits 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9. Add to that the fact that virtually none of the key players in the scandal were interviewed, and that reports exist that people who were interviewed felt that investigators were looking for predetermined answers.

Recently of course you are aware that court cases have led to the release of hundreds of emails that show that the Freeh report was biased and corrupted from before Penn State even had a legal engagement contract with Mr. Freeh. Thus the announcement when Mr. Freeh was hired that he would be independent and turn over every stone was a lie. The emails unequivocally show that the NCAA, Big Ten Conference, and the Penn State Special Investigations Task Force led Mr. Freeh where they wanted him to go. In the interest of "moving forward", Penn State (the corporate institution, not the community at large) decided it was most expedient to blame our "football culture" rather than search for hard truths like those Jim Clemente wrote about in his report at www.paterno.com, or the fact that the child welfare system in Pennsylvania is severely flawed (see my posts at on the Tutko and Lee cases at www.no1lion99.blogspot.com or many at www.notpsu.blogspot.com).

Now back to your review. What you appear to be doing is looking at everything in private and then making some kind of an announcement about what you find. This is the same thing Mr. Freeh did. It will fail because people view you as just another tool that the 'old guard' Board will use to hide the truth. I have no doubt you are an intelligent man, and know much better than I how to run our great university. I know there is great political pressure to bear. However your actions of recent months show that you are stuck on the wrong side of this fight. First your email regarding "civility", and then your exit from the recent board meeting to (from what I hear) glad hand some big donors. What could be more important than discovering the real truth here? Now this review. Frankly Dr. Barron, no one puts any trust in your actions regarding the Freeh report. I wish I could say differently, but that's the truth. The only thing likely to come of this is further subpoenas and depositions for the emails, discussions, notes, and conversations that go into your report.

It is for that reason that I urge you to halt this review and immediately open a formal public review. Call for Mr. Freeh to return to campus as his contract demands and answer to the Board and the Penn State community at large. If he is confident in his report he will have no problem coming to defend it. Hold public hearings where both the board and the public can ask critical questions, and immediately release ALL source materials on the Progress website. Until this happens, no amount of 'internal' reviews will quell the public anger, and Penn State will never be allowed to move forward. Surely you can see that multiple courts are going to investigate this matter themselves. It is time for Penn State to come clean, and stop hiding from the truths. I look forward to your response.


Sincerely,
John Yonchuk
Biology '99

Who decided to remove the Paterno Statue?

In an earlier post I speculated that the Penn State Board of Trustees helped write the consent decree and the sanctions that came along with it. Ray Blehar has gone into much more detail at www.notpsu.blogspot.com as well. With the two recent releases of emails (here and here) in the Corman v. NCAA suit I wanted to revisit this idea and add to it.

Revisiting my old post I still think there is no doubt that the Board wanted the sanctions and the SITF made sure the Freeh report said this was all a football problem, but I found some interesting items that seem to point towards the NCAA piling on, which may have caught the power bloc of the board by surprise.


The interesting events occurred in the days leading up to the removal of the Paterno statue and the announcement of the consent decree. Don Van Natta reported on July 15th that the Board decided to keep the statue.

Two days later Donald Remy emails Omar McNeil of the Freeh Group to tell him that NCAA President Mark Emmert has requested a meeting with Louis Freeh:

This was the same day that Emmert had scheduled a conference call with the Division I board of directors about the situation at Penn State:

Just two days later Chairman Peetz requested a conference call for all voting members of the board where she attached an article that would foreshadow how the power bloc wanted to play the scandal and its position moving forward:

Shortly after the request for a conference call the NCAA sprung a surprise on the Board, the vacation of all wins.

It was only at this point that the representative for Penn State, Gene Marsh, began to protest, saying he felt that the NCAA was trying to reform college athletics through one case. 

What can we "reasonably conclude" from these exchanges? I think there are two things that were likely to have happened. First, it seems the Board really did want to salvage some of Paterno's legacy and was prepared to leave the statue where it was. They knew that removal of the statue would incense many alumni and they have been trying the whole time in this scandal to play both sides. However it appears that the NCAA and Emmert may have demanded the removal of the statue AND of course obviously demanded the removal of the past wins of Joe Paterno. They conveniently 'forgot' to mention it until it appears most of the consent decree was negotiated. Marsh correctly knew this would be a point of contention because he likely knew that while the Board wanted blame on Paterno, they didn't want too much, as it would keep attention on their failures from angry alumni. 

From the outset of the Sandusky scandal Corbett, the OAG, the Board, the B1G, and the NCAA have made one supreme miscalculation that is a basic principle of conflict. Never underestimate your enemy. They underestimated what Joe Paterno meant to our great school, and how far many of us will go to fight for his good name. It appears likely that the Board underestimated the NCAA's vindictiveness and self-promotional nature when trying to play both sides in the negotiation of sanctions. They will pay dearly for that. 

Letter to the NYT: Frazier and Dandrea walk back the "exhaustive" nature of Freeh report

In your editorial, “Penn State’s Part” on July 12, 2012, you were quick to condemn Penn State leaders, especially Coach Paterno, in the aftermath of the Freeh Report. You described the report as an “exhaustive investigation” that supposedly showed how some put football above child safety. Two years later, after the Penn State Board actually met to discuss a possible review of that report, those who supported it previously are now the ones calling it incomplete.

During a recent Board meeting, two trustees who have led the charge to have Freeh’s work accepted, entirely debunked it. When asked “do you believe that Louis Freeh did a complete, thorough investigation?” Ken Frazier responded “The answer to that is no”. Rick Dandrea stated that “there could be significant evidence coming from any one of these legal proceedings that would render moot what would at best be a premature attempt to address these questions” in reference to the multiple civil and criminal lawsuits still ongoing. Penn Staters everywhere noted these problems with the report when it was released, yet the major media outlets ignored it. Judge Freeh wrote a rushed, partial report that some at PSU bought and paid for. If you don’t believe that ask yourself where are exhibits 1, 4, 7, 8, & 9?

The tide has turned. Judges across Pennsylvania are forcing parties into the courtroom. Frazier and Dandrea are walking back their positions. The truth is coming, that this had nothing to do with Penn State Football. It’s time for the Times editorial board to correct the record as well. Children are still being harmed in PA due to this false narrative.

John Yonchuk

Christopher G. Lee...a.k.a. Sandusky Lite

Christopher Lee appears to be another central PA child sex offender who was protected by powerful people in law enforcement. When will someone put a stop to this corruption in PA?

Jerry Sandusky sexually abused children with impunity as a child molester in central PA for more than a decade based on current convictions (and likely more than 3 decades in total if other allegations end up proving true). Over the course of his reign there were a series of, shall we say, fortunate developments that prevented him from being put behind bars where he belonged. They included the ignoring of Dr. Alycia Chambers report indicating signs of abuse in 1998, the failure of Dr. Jack Raykovitz to make a report after he was informed of the 2001 shower incident, and perhaps other yet to be publicized or verified allegations. As stated by the Moulton Report there were "inexplicable delays" in investigating Sandusky. It turns out that Sandusky may not have been the only preferential child sex abuser in the central PA region to be protected by people in high places. Let me introduce you to Christopher G. Lee.

Christopher Lee - Sandusky Lite?

First it was Sandusky, now we have the unfolding case of Christopher G. Lee, CEO of Boal Mansion and Harris Township Supervisor. If you are unfamiliar, Mr. Lee was arrested on Thursday 02 October 2014 on federal charges of child exploitation and child pornography and a "litany of crimes surrounding misconduct with children". The case stems from an initial report earlier this year by a young victim who alleges misconduct on Mr. Lee's part during stays at the mansion between January and June of this year. From news reports it appears that authorities suspect he may have other victims, and they have good reason.

That is because Christopher Lee was previously charged with indecent assault, corruption of minors, and harassment in 2005 when two boys ages 8 and 10 alleged inappropriate touching while they stayed at the mansion. Curiously, that case was adjudicated with an imposition of an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, or ARD program.

Strangely, this was not the original plan. In September of 2005 the Daily Collegian reported a trial date was being set and that Lee faced a minimum jail sentence of 5 years. The docket however, tells a different story that unfolded. The original conference in the case was handled in the courtroom of Judge David E. Grine. If you aren't familiar with the Sandusky case you may not have heard this name. However if you are, you would know that Judge Grine is the same Judge who released Matt Sandusky into the care of Jerry and Dottie Sandusky . That judgement was in opposition to both Matt's biological mother and a school probation officer, both of whom argued against the placement. Sandusky had a psychologist write on his behalf, though it's unclear who this was or what they wrote. At the time Judge Grine refused to comment.

How does one go from a minimum of 5 years in jail to community service? In the Lee case, ARD was recommended by the DA at the time, Michael Madeira, also in opposition to the mother of the victims in the case who wanted the case to proceed. By imposing ARD, Lee would complete some community service and counseling, and then most of the record would then be expunged. According to that CDT article Madeira claimed that he wanted to spare the children a trial saying "It was just not a risk I was willing to take". However, a source I have spoken to who has direct knowledge of the case says that Madeira told a much different story at the time. The source says that Madeira told the court the victims were unwilling to testify and that when the victims later learned this and stated they did want to proceed, Madeira told them the DA's office could not afford to cover the travel costs associated toreturn for trial, as they had moved to the west coast. In the words of my source, Madeira "screwed" them. With no supposed willing victims the court took what it could get with ARD.

Madeira also played a role in the delay arresting Jerry Sandusky as well. According to Geoffrey Moulton's report, it was Madeira who claimed he did not recall being informed about the 1998 Sandusky investigation. To review, Sandusky was originally accused of abusing Aaron Fisher in Clinton County but the case was referred by Clinton County DA Michael Salisbry to Centre County, and Madeira, allegedly because most of his crimes had taken place there. At the time of the referral to Centre County, First Assistant Mark Smith, who had been in the office in 1998, says that he informed Madeira of the previous investigation. Madeira, being married to a relative of one of Sandusky's adopted children, then passed the case off to the PA OAG due to his conflict where it languished with little activity for more than 2 years (leading to the abuse of additional victims), and informed no one of the 1998 case. In an ironic twist of fate (or more depending on your perspective), Michael Madeira is now employed by...Penn State. I contacted Mr. Madeira for this story but received no response.

A second connection to the Sandusky case is the defense lawyer for Mr. Lee. Representing Christopher Lee is none other than Joe Amendola, who unsuccessfully tried to defend Jerry Sandusky against the child sexual abuse charges in 2012. You will recall Amendola himself has had a past of suspect behavior with children himself, impregnating a 16 year old girl who he was representing, and whom he later married.

In yet another twist, a player in the Penn State fallout of the Sandusky scandal is closely tied to the Lee case as well. PSU Trustee Anne Riley, who sat on the Board during the firing of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, has close connections with Lee. You will recall that Riley "voted" to fire Paterno, despite the fact that Paterno and his wife Sue did everything they could to save her dad's life when he had collapsed in their kitchen (and later died), as detailed in Jay Paterno's book "Paterno Legacy: Enduring Lessons from the Life and Death of My Father". Mrs. Riley also just happened to sit on two local Boards with Mr Lee; the Boalsburg Heritage Museum Board and the Mount Nittany Conservacy Board. Not only did Mrs. Riley sit on multiple boards with Mr. Lee but a local source who attended State College Area High School where Riley taught for 30 years says that Riley brought Mr. Lee into the school and introduced him as her boyfriend.

Another connection to the Sandusky case here is through another member of the Boalsburg Heritage Museum. Sitting on the Museum board along with Mrs. Riley and Christopher Lee was Ron Coder. Ron, a former PSU football player, was hired as an executive director at Second Mile according to Sandusky's book Touched. From page 185:

On top of that connection Ron's wife, Hope, was a very close friend of the Sandusky family. Rumors have been circulating for years now that the Sandusky scandal hid something much much bigger in central PA, a child pedophile ring. As we start to peel back the layers here it doesn't seem so far fetched. What is clear is that many of these people were well acquainted with each other and also had common business interests.

Why won't PA Law Enforcement and Welfare Agencies Protect Children? Why do advocates ignore real problems?

In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Lee's arrest, news articles contained the usual quotes and comments from "experts" and "advocates" that you often now see in these stories. In the case of Lee, this included reporting of the previous arrest and questions about the ARD disposition. There was one particular comment from Jennifer Storm, Victim Advocate for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that caught my eye. According to her website, in her position Storm is:

"responsible for representing the rights and interests of crime victims before the Board of Probation and Parole and the Department of Corrections and to provide notification to crime victims of the potential for inmate release, opportunity to provide testimony, and notification of the inmate’s movement within the correctional system. Further, Ms. Storm is responsible for advocating the interests of adult and juvenile crime victims throughout Pennsylvania."

Yet one comment on the Lee case struck an odd tone.

'Storm says a number of changes to the laws regarding sexual assault came out of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal. These include changes to the legal definition of the term “perpetrator,” as well as more stringent reporting requirements. Though Storm is not overly familiar with the details of the 2005 allegations against Lee, she points out these changes were not yet in place then.

“In terms of any assaultive behaviors involving minors, one of the huge lessons we learned – not just from Jerry Sandusky, but from many teacher sexual assaults – is that when these crimes are never reported or left undiscovered, that’s a huge part of the problem,” Storm says.'

Storm focuses her comments on changes to the law made in light of the Sandusky case. What is unusual is that Lee had already been reported in 2005 and was allowed by law enforcement and the courts to enter a light rehabilitative program, expunge his record, and then continue as a Township Supervisor! Why? He was then very clearly reported again this year. Why does Mrs. Storm think reporting laws, or definitions of perpetrators would have anything to do with this case? Lee was reported, arrested, charged, arraigned, and then let off easy for some reason. The problem was not reporting, it was what was done once he was reported.

This is a strange statement especially in light of some other comments made by Storm when the Lee story first broke. Storm stated that the ARD program is not usually intended for such crimes:

"Jennifer Storm, the governor-appointed Commonwealth Victim Advocate of Pennsylvania, says the ARD program is traditionally intended for use by first-time DUI offenders. Though the program has occasionally seen misdemeanor domestic violence cases, she says ARD is generally not intended for use in alleged crimes with a specific victim or bodily injury."

It is not at all clear how better reporting standards would have stopped Mr. Lee. This is especially true since the first time he was reported he was left off without almost any penalty at all. As far as I can tell, Mrs. Storm has not publicly added anything else to the record on the Lee case specifically, or explained in any way how better reporting laws would have stopped Mr. Lee. I contacted Mrs. Storm for this piece and she replied stating:

"My statements to that reporter were based on questions they asked me that obviously didn't appear in the story. I was asked specifically about what has changed since the Sandusky assaults that helps moving forward. The response I gave that you referenced was not a question about Lee specifically, rather a generic question about teacher assaults and the increase we are seeing in reporting."

I asked Mrs. Storm to further clarify the role the OVA plays in situations like these and what the OVA does to make sure ARD is not used improperly in situations like these and she told me

"I am working closely with District Attorney's office across the Commonwealth to educate on the impact of such decision on victims, families and the community. The OVA has traveled to over 35 of our 67 counties providing a 2 hour training on issues such as this and what our agency can do for crime victim since their offenders reach the state level, as that is where our legal rights begin for victims. I have attended and spoken at the DA's annual summer meeting and plan to continue doing so. Additionally, I take every opportunity presented to me to speak out about the impact on victims."

While I applaud Mrs. Storm for these efforts, and appreciate her willingness to converse with me on the topic, I am still not clear on how this education will stop alleged misbehavior on the part of DAs like Mr. Madeira. It seems more proper that there should be a change to the ARD law that would entirely prohibit it's use when there is a bodily victim specified, and Mrs. Storm should press for such a change with our lawmakers in my opinion. The power of the OVA would surely bring pressure to bear on lawmakers.

Conclusion: The Pattern Continues

When the Sandusky scandal broke and information began to emerge about what had gone wrong, stories coalesced mostly (by design for some) around how the Penn State Football program had "failed" to act morally. Major news outlets, without the staff and resources to invest finding out the real facts, ran with this story despite clear factual problems (i.e. the grand jury presentment "anal rape" lie).

As this narrative took off, it left truth behind. Many ran with the idea that we just HAD to improve reporting standards in PA, and that the big failure was that of reporting suspected abuse. Then the Jared Tutko Jr case emerged, another case where State officials had taken reports of abuse and yet failed the child. Now we have a case where law enforcement officials, and state agencies once again used questionable procedures, children were harmed, and the people who claim to be protecting them are failing at their jobs. The continued focus on new reporting laws after the Sandusky scandal entirely misses the point on all of these crimes. Sandusky was reported, Lee was reported, Jared Tutko Sr. was reported. The failure in many cases comes after abuse is reported, not from the lack of reporting. This is evidenced by a 2009 review of child safety in PA where 42.3% of cases were determined to not meet Outomce S1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.  The more evidence that is uncovered, the more it seems right to ask, is this by design or mistake? What is going on in Pennsylvania?

Stay tuned for more....

The CYS/DPW saga continues: Tutko and Sandusky cases highlight how state agencies fail, deflect blame.

The last 3 years have provided quite an education for me, and I am not speaking in the formal sense. What I have learned about is the state of the state agencies in Pennsylvania that are charged with protecting children; Children and Youth Serivces (CYS) and the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). The Jerry Sandusky scandal is the lens through which I began to view the story but it is becoming clear that that is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The point of this post is not to criticize individual caseworkers as I know they are tremendously overburdened as it is, but rather to critique how the system has failed overall and then tries to deflect from it's own inadequacies.

The spark of today's post is the recent update on the case of poor, young Jarrod Tutko Jr. If you aren't familiar yet, Jarrod is a 9 year old boy who was "found" dead at his home on 29 July, 2014. At that time Jarrod weighed in at 16.9 pounds, or barely 25% of the average weight of a nine year old boy (63 pounds). What was even more appalling was the fact that the boy apparently lay in his feces-covered room dead for at least 2 days before officials were notified by the family. The initial story was that due to the multiple special needs children in the household, the mother and father split duties and the father had not informed the mother out of fear, going on about his routine of pretending to feed the boy. Initially Jarrod Tutko Sr was the only person charged with a crime. It was also known at the time that Dauphin County CYS had performed an investigation in October of 2013 yet apparently did not do much about obvious signs of neglect and abuse.

Then this week the mother, Kimberly Tutko and her husband were both charged with homicide as we found out much more detail on the family and just how much information various state agencies had on the Tutkos. That would be enough to open an investigation by the state on the agencies' handling of the case. Records indicate that neighboring Schuylkill county had tried to remove children from Mrs. Tutko's care in 2002, that Kimberly Tutko's parental rights for four other children had been terminated due to abuse, and that NJ child welfare agencies had contacted DCCYS about the Tutkos in 2006. In fact, Jarrod Tutko Jr was "put on hold" at the hospital after his birth due to an ongoing investigation of the parents!

So here we are once again. We have another high profile case of child abuse where there seems to be a large amount of information and warning signs ignored by professionals in our state agencies. This ignorance cost children in PA. This is the criminal version of the movie Groundhog Day. We are back at the same spot we were with the Sandusky case. Over a period of more than a decade there were clear signs indicating Kimberly and Jarrod Tutko were unfit parents and yet despite a current complaint CYS left children in their care and one poor, defenseless, disabled child died. Another was a mere hours from death.

We also have a pattern in the response of our state agenices in how these cases get reported to the public. You can read extensively about how the PA OAG and others like PennLive have systematically buried the failures of the state agencies in the Sandusky case at the SMSS Freehdom Fighters site. Ray Blehar and others have done a fantastic job of demonstrating how some wanted to focus on Penn State to hide the culpability of CYS and DPW in the failures of stopping Sandusky. Some did it to deflect blame, like PA Governor Tom Corbett, while others did it for web clicks, like PennLive and ESPN.

In the case of the Tutkos, we can already see the beginning of such a plan taking shape again. Notice the headline of the news report focuses on the homicide charges (Yes these parents should be charged but that isn't the point). It isn't until 18 paragraphs into the story that you hear anything about the warning signs that were there over the last decade. The PennLive story on September 30 attempts to place blame on NJ officials, painting the picture of neglect on NJ officials for releasing Jarrod Jr back to the Tutkos twice (again NJ officials also should have to answer for their actions in this case as well).

However what is clear is that PA child welfare agencies were well aware of the danger the Tutko children faced, again with clear warning signs, during the 2013 investigation and yet apparently (we don't know much yet because no one is talking) did little to assure the safety of the children. Neighbors describe a peculiar family that was reclusive, a father who was violent, often hitting his children in clear view of others. They tell the tale of the older brother, Aaron, ribs visible he was so skinny, who preferred to remain out of the house at all costs.

Yet a Dauphin County CYS made a finding of no abuse on 30 December, 2013 and terminated the services to the Tutko family. You are not misreading that. In a case where untrained neighbors saw the father routinely violent with his children, professionals blew it off after claiming to be inside the house. A house that contained the room pictured below where Jarrod Jr died.

How does a state child welfare agency supposedly enter that house and not take action, save for a letter? It's incomprehensible to even a layperson. Either that agency didn't care for those children, or they never did a thorough investigation like they are supposed to. Both reasons are equally horrible.

The Jerry Sandusky case opened my eyes to the failures of my own state's agencies that are tasked with protecting children. Perhaps it was an outlier, a true perfect storm, perhaps Jerry Sandusky just was that good at concealing his activities? Or perhaps there is something more going on. The case of Jarrod Tutko Jr. has shown that it is the latter in my opinion. Our state agencies need to be held accountable just like the awful people who perpetrate these crimes. We need to demand answers of our officials, otherwise what are we paying them for?

This isn't about Penn State Football, nor NJ welfare agencies, nor Mr. and Mrs. Tutko. Like the Sandusky case people (Dr. Chambers, McQueary, Aaron Fisher) raised the red flags. Like the Sandusky case, those at CYS and DPW ignored them. The common core in all of these stories is that people who claim to want to protect children put them back in harms way even when there are obvious signs of abuse. It's time to demand more of our professionals.

Governor Corbett vindicates man he was instrumental in firing (Joe Paterno)

Last month I posted about how the NCAA vindicated Joe Paterno and PSU with it's new sexual assault policy. This last week came news that the man who was admittedly instrumental in having Joe Paterno fired, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, basically vindicated Paterno as well.

It has now been widely reported that during H. Geoffery Moulton's investigation of the Corbett OAG's handling of the Sandusky investigation, sexually explicit emails were found being sent among OAG staffers. While these emails have now been inexplicably put under seal by a grand jury judge, the Corbett administration has now made comments about them and they are telling. The first statement by Corbett campaign manager Mike Barley initially denied that Corbett had any knowledge of the emails. However since that time the administration has backtracked.

In a second statement to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Barley was forced to clarify that statement. Indeed, Barley stated, Corbett had been informed of the emails no later than the date of his interview with Mr. Moulton.

"To clarify, the governor did not have any discussions with Mr. Moulton during the official interview regarding this matter, after that interview concluded, Mr. Moulton told the governor that emails were uncovered during the investigation that may have been inappropriate."

This immediately brings up the question of what was done by the Governor when he was informed of these emails? Has his administration questioned any people? Have they reprimanded or punished anyone involved? Have they done anything? What type of material is there? Does any of it include the depiction of underage children? These are all valid and reasonable questions, especially in light of Governor Corbett's statements and actions after the release of the Sandusky indictment.

You may recall that Cynthia Baldwin stated on the record that Governor Corbett was more involved with his role on the PSU board than any other time as the Sandusky investigation came to a head. In fact the first board meeting he attended was the one during which Joe Paterno was fired. His staff had booked rooms in town eight days prior to the presentments release. Then during that board meeting on the evening of November 9th Corbett said:

"Remember that little boy in the shower" - Tom Corbett

By all accounts this was the last thing said before the 'vote' to fire Joe Paterno. Now if you recall Coach Paterno had stated multiple times that at no time were any specific details related to him about what Mike McQueary saw on the night of February 9th, 2001. In fact his Grand Jury testimony said:

"So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster." - Joe Paterno

So Joe Paterno was told of something inappropriate and immediately reported it to his superiors who he felt would handle the follow up, per PA law and PSU policy. Under that law and policy it would be inappropriate and in some way illegal for Paterno to further engage the investigation.

Flash forward to Barley 'clarifying' Governor Corbett's knowledge of the sexually explicit emails that were discovered in the Moulton investigation. Here is further comment by Barley:

"To be clear, the governor had no knowledge of these alleged emails while he was attorney general, nor has he ever seen them. (If) he would have known about any inappropriate emails being sent, he would have put a stop to that type of activity immediately, he would never condone that type of behavior, and if these reports are true, he will be very disappointed.”

This is essentially exactly the same reasoning Joe Paterno used. He was unaware of specific details about the allegation, reported it up the line, was never told Sandusky was abusing the boy, and would have definitely done more had he known that was the case. Yet in very similar circumstances what has Governor Corbett done in the months since? At this point we know of nothing. One thing is certain, when a politician backtracks like this on a 'denial' you can be sure there is more underneath that we don't know. That is why it is so disturbing that the emails have been put under seal.

To that all I have to say is this: Governor Corbett, remember the culture you allowed in your office.

Dear President Barron

Eric J. Barron
Penn State Office of the President
201 Old Main
University Park, PA 16802

Dear President Barron

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to write to the Penn State community. As a 3rd generation Penn Stater whose roots date back to 1928, I do hope that one thing you do more than any other in your tenure here is keep open honest lines of communication with all constituents in our great community. One thing that has surely been lacking in this crisis for PSU is strong leadership and good communication.

With that I do take exception to your letter regarding civility. From day one of this crisis the powerful few who control our beloved University (the Board's power bloc), have shown complete disregard for civility. Though I could come up with dozens of examples ("There are no do overs" - Ken Frazier), the single shining example of this was the firing of Penn State coaching legend Joseph Vincent Paterno via phone the evening of November 9, 2011.

Coach Paterno served this amazing university for 61 years with loyalty, love, dedication, hard work, excellence, and honor. As recently detailed by his son Jay, he often gave up being a normal father and husband to tend to Penn State. In what was his career's darkest hour, when he most needed the University he gave everything he had to to have his back, the record indicates that they turned their back on him. In the 4 days from when the Sandusky news broke until the moment of that fateful phone call the Board never once asked Joe Paterno his version of what happened. They never once gave him any chance to respond to the allegations, not facts, presented publicly. Instead after four days they simply sent one of his previous pupils to his door in the dark of night with a phone number and fired him with disgrace over the phone. After that they tried to claim they had not done what the world saw them do, claiming he had not been fired, but "retired early".

The leaders of our university sacrificed the man who spent 61 years building the institution they now use to further their careers for expediency and ease. Little did they know that would be their worst mistake. The man who taught us everything, how to do things the right way, Success With Honor, is a man that many of us will go to the ends of the earth to fight for. Our power brokers are learning that now. Despite their attempt to sweep all of this under the rug and "move forward", they will one day have to answer on record for their selfishness. They are being pulled into multiple lawsuits, and great people like Ryan Bagwell are demanding that records be made public. Coach Paterno's last dying wish was the truth, and many of us will not stop until that is seen.

So when you ask for civility you hold the power to help make this happen. The first step is an official apology to Sue Paterno and the Paterno family for how they have been treated in all of this. The second step is to stand up and fight for what is right and true. The stakes are high, as children in PA are still in grave danger as long as these truths are kept in the dark. I ask you to take the first step and have the University officially apologize to the Paterno family.

John G. Yonchuk III
B.S. Biology 1999
Life Member, Penn State Alumni Association

NCAA in 2012: Don't do what Joe Paterno & PSU Did...NCAA in 2014: Do EXACTLY what Joe Paterno & PSU did.

As most of the PSU community was digesting the hideous performance, both morally and technically, of the latest Board of Trustees meeting to pass a resolution on settlement talks in the NCAA v. Corman lawsuit the NCAA itself landed perhaps the biggest blow for fraud, hypocrisy, and fence sitting ever seen.

I want to take you back to July 23rd, 2012 when NCAA President Mark Emmert unfurled the PSU Consent Decree. There are a plethora of problems with the 'conclusions' stated in the consent decree, based on the flawed Freeh Report, that others like Ray Blehar and the SMSS Freehdom Fighters have already covered in great detail that I am not going to cover here. I want to focus more specifically on a few points and contrast it to a resolution the NCAA adopted one week ago.

The NCAA consent decree stated the following:

Of course at the time people who cared to look closely knew this statement to be entirely false. The facts demonstrate that Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno did indeed report the incident to the only mandated reporter with responsibility for the child, Second Mile head and licensed psychologist Jack Raykovitz. By making this report, to a trained licensed professional outside of PSU they obviously were not concealing the report and expected it to reach authorities per the relevant PA statutes which Raykovitz was aware of and bound by. In addition at least two people in the case have independently testified that they believed the child welfare agency was contacted and to date no one has disproven this claim.

Furthermore, Joe Paterno specifically stated that he did not know how to handle these things (likely because PSU had never trained him due to their failure to implement Clery Act laws, a Board failure not a Football program failure) and therefore reported it per university policy to people he felt would, i.e. Curley and Schultz. Paterno also realized correctly that he should report what he was told and step aside, as his involvement could cloud the follow up either way. Finally sexual abuse investigators who are trained would not want him following up with or confronting the accused because it could cause problems, especially since he was not a direct witness to anything.

Despite all of this the NCAA attempted to use PSU as a punching bag for it's own PR purposes and sanctimoniously hammered the football program with the worst sanctions in history. Mark Emmert in his press conference stated:

"What we can do is impose sanctions that...ensure that Penn State will rebuild an athletic culture that went horribly awry. Our goal is not to be just punitive, but to make sure the University establishes and athletic culture and daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing, and protecting young people."

Of course anyone who knew Penn State football knew at the time this was a farce. Penn State had never under Joe Paterno put football ahead of anything else, especially educating and nurturing young minds. Penn State had been called the model for NCAA student athletes by Miles Brand, regularly ranked in the top of the NCAA in graduating it's players, and there are literally hundreds if not thousands of testimonials of Paterno imparting important life lessons onto his players and preparing them to be productive citizens in society.

Fast forward to last week. On August 8th, 2014 the NCAA approved a new resolution to deal with sexual abuse at schools. The most noteworthy element of the resolution from the point of view of the Sandusky scandal was this one:

The resolution essentially says that no member of the athletic department should attempt to intervene, direct, or control any sexual assault allegation. It is a truly odd stance to take for an organization which has admitted that they relied on Freeh's report to justify the sanctions and agreed with it's conclusions. The issue being that Freeh's report, including it's recommendations, criticized the "Penn State 4" for not attempting to investigate it themselves:

This is the height of hypocrisy. In 2012 a (flawed) investigation which, if you are knowledgeable in child abuse laws and procedures, determined Penn State officials reported an allegation to exactly who the law says they should, but the report is used to claim some kind of 'moral failure' and 'lack of institutional control' by the NCAA to levy sanctions. The NCAA, backed by several members of the board, in violation University standing orders, told the world don't do what Paterno and Penn State did, but rather use your powers to intervene, or we will intervene and crush your town and football program. We will destroy the legacy of the greatest and likely most ethical coach to ever walk the sidelines. We will stain it's faculty, staff, students, and alumni for all time by calling them child rape enablers, a mark that will not likely wear off anytime soon. Yet now, in August of 2014, the NCAA adopts an official stance that no members of athletics should attempt to direct or intervene in a sexual abuse investigation. This is in direct contradiction to the Freeh report and the Consent Decree which relied on that report.

The NCAA effectively just said to the world - Do what Joe Paterno did, and that's our official position, in writing now. With a settlement pending in the Corman lawsuit, and the University likely knowing the sanctions will ease further this fall, it is likely the Board will continue it's official 'move forward' policy and like the NCAA, sweep this all into the past. Unfortunately for the Board and NCAA, there are people in the Penn State community who actually care about truth and kids and won't move on until these things see the light of day, even if they stain our university to it's highest levels. We will never move on.

It's time to burn this whole thing to the ground.

Who is the real Sandusky Victim 2? Does it Matter?

Note: Nowhere in this post will I use any victim names or identities. The point of this post is not to question whether someone is a victim of Jerry Sandusky, this man is indeed a victim. Whether he is 'Victim 2' is far from clear and that is the only point of this analysis. Jerry Sandusky likely had dozens of victims, some still unknown, and this man is one of them. Furthermore the identity of Victim 2 or any other victim is not necessary to understand why there was no cover up in the 2001 shower incident. Whether or not a crime was committed that night, the only thing that matters is whether people at PSU did the 'right' thing with information they had at the time. Based on the record to date I believe they did.

Much debate has occurred over the true identity of 'Victim 2' in the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Officially he has never been identified (p14 lines 7-9) by prosecutors in the case. Documentary filmmaker John Ziegler however has claimed to have identified a young man who he thinks is the mystery 'Victim 2'. A careful review of all of the evidence raises serious questions about that identity.

Most of the evidence to date revolving around 'Victim 2' is based in large part on a man coming forward to Jerry Sandusky's lawyer Joe Amendola. This man gave an interview to Curtis Everhart, and investigator for Mr. Amendola. The first point that supposedly confirms his identity as 'Victim 2' is that he heard the infamous 'locker door slam' that Mike McQueary (eventually) described. You can find that here:

First it was not public knowledge at that point in time, Nov ,9 2011, that the door sound was claimed by McQueary, in fact technically we did not even have confirmation McQueary was the graduate assistant. The first claim that McQueary makes to stopping the assault came in an email obtained by the Patriot News in which he only generally says he made sure it stopped but not how. His first direct public statement relating to the locker door did not come until McQueary testified at Schultz's and Curley's preliminary hearing (p17 Line 14) on Dec 16, 2011. Some will claim this lends credibility to the alleged Victim 2 statement, which might be the case except that Sandusky admits he met with this man in the fall leading up to his indictment. In fact we know they had a close relationship for years, thus making it possible at any point that Sandusky shared information with him.

You can also see several problems with the statement itself. First, McQuery claimed that he "slammed" the door shut in his testimony. However the victim says he heard a door "close". Either McQueary is embellishing what he did, or the victim is recalling a night other than the one McQueary is describing in his testimony. Second, the victim in this statement says that the sound of the locker closing was "a sound I have heard before". If this was a sound he heard before when showering with Sandusky, and he had showered frequently with Sandusky there, how do we know which night he was recalling 10 plus years later? Both Sandusky and the victim claim they never saw McQueary so why would a shower where you heard a noise you have heard before make it memorable? Combined with the fact that Sandusky had been in contact with him it adds no credible meaning to the claim that it was the same night.

A second point of contention with this victim's claim is of the date that the incident occurred. He states multiple times that it was March 1, 2002:

Why is this an issue? Mike McQuery also originally used the March 1, 2002 date in his claim as well and was wrong, but there is one key difference. Mike McQuery actually allowed room for doubt and said it may have actually been 2001.

The victim is clear several times in the interview that he is certain it was March 1, 2002 unlike McQueary who left us some doubt. What I believe is that Victim 2 is basing his statement in part on being shown the Grand Jury report of the Victim 2 incident during the interview, thus likely basing his certainty on the fact that the presentment states that as the date. He also claims this was the last night he ever showered with Sandusky at the PSU Complex. However what we now know is that the true date of the Victim 2 incident is February 9, 2001 which presents another problem with the alleged victim 2 statement. Speaking about his workouts and showering at PSU in general our victim states:

This victim says that he worked out with Sandusky at PSU until 2002, but says that the infamous shower incident was the last time he showered with Sandusky. This presents a problem for him since the true date of the shower incident was February 9, 2001 as demonstrated by the Schultz file and emails discovered since. We already know from the way the victim speaks that working out and showering at PSU was a regular occurrence. So two possibilities exist for this seeming contradiction. Either this man's memory is not as good as he thinks (likely) and 2001 was the true end of his showering there, or he is claiming that he worked out at PSU with Sandusky for more than a year without showering. Either could be correct. However since we know from the record that Sandusky was instructed not to bring children to the facilities, even if he did keep working out but not showering, Sandusky for the second time violated a warning about his activities with Second Mile kids, which further demonstrates possible intent.

Furthermore there are clear issues with the timing of this man's claim to be Victim 2. Notice that the man claims "that same week" he spoke to Jerry and was told to expect a phone call from PSU.

This does not fit at all with his claim surrounding the episode. This man claims the episode occurred March 1, 2002, but for the sake of this lets assume he just has the year incorrect. From the email evidence we now know that Tim Curley spoke to Sandusky sometime after February 26, 2001. It would fit then that this man was told he would be contacted sometime around March 1 and some have posited the contact from Jerry as confusing his memory in regard to "that week". The problem with that is the man claims in his statement that he very clearly remembers the night itself due to the door noise. If he very clearly remembers the night then it is a stretch to say that he got the relative time frame so wrong. The call/talk with Sandusky would have come approximately 3-4 weeks after the night in question.

Finally I come to the biggest problem with the statement given to Mr. Everhart by the victim. It is the contention in his interview that he quit The Second Mile program in the 6th grade.

Unfortunately apparently no one at The Second Mile got that memo because this same man gave a speech at a Second Mile event as a 9th grader in 2001. From the 2000 annual report (covering 8/31/2000 to 8/31/2001) of The Second Mile:

It would certainly be strange for an organization to use a self-proclaimed quitter of that organization to make a speech telling people how wonderful said organization is. The speech is also given in the present tense, thus implying that the speaker is still part of the program. "You lead us..", "You help us..", "you're there again.." all present tense. Sandusky himself also corroborates the man was indeed a Second Mile kid when the incident occurred in his prison interview:

What does all of this mean? I want to reiterate I am not disputing this man's claim that he is a victim of Jerry Sandusky and I do not think he is lying about being abused. He has received a settlement from PSU to that effect. He is a child sexual abuse victim, period. It does show that his belief that he is the victim known as 'Victim 2' in the presentment is suspect, in fact in totality the claims don't add up. He may very well believe that he is Victim 2, and he may well be, but it is far from certain based on the information we have to date. He may just have the same problems with memory that all people have. The record shows that multiple victims claim abuse during the time period of the 2001 shower incident and this man is one of them. We know Sandusky did not initially recall to Tim Curley which child he had at the showers that evening. It is quite possible that Sandusky considered his multiple victims and chose one he knew he had not crossed a line with that night and then suggested to that child that he was the person known as 'Victim 2'. It's also possible that this is the child in the shower that night and nothing overtly criminal happened. There are a range of possible explanations. Sandusky manipulated his victims like all preferential sex offenders and that manipulation did not stop necessarily when the actual abuse stopped.This man is still being groomed today by Sandusky (Sandusky left him voice mails in the fall of 2011 as well) just like most of the PSU community was groomed, just like Dottie was groomed.

Jim Clemente told us that Sandusky was in the top one percent of effective "groomers" and there is no reason to think Sandusky lost his charm and skills since being indicated for abuse in 2009. This man may truly believe in his heart that he was the boy McQueary observed in the shower with Sandusky that night and that he was not sexually victimized by Sandusky that night.  However, even if he was that boy, he clearly did not know, at the time or at the time when he was interviewed in 2011, the elements of the crimes of corruption of minors, unlawful contact with a minor, or endangering the welfare of a minor.  Therefore his assessment that no sexual crimes were committed that night by Sandusky is not relevant.  The "game playing" that he describes could certainly contain body contact between a naked Sandusky and this naked boy.  Such contact with the intent of sexual arousal on the part of Sandusky could violate the above referenced statutes with or without the knowledge of the victim. The fact that this man eventually disclosed sexual victimization by Sandusky indicates that like Sandusky's other known victims, this victim was skillfully groomed into sexual activity by a man who clearly had sexual intent throughout the grooming and sexual victimization process.

It is also important to note that Sandusky's attorney Amendola is on the record stating that he has doubts about this man's claim and was not able to verify it. 

Lastly the identity of the victim and even reality of the crimes that may or may not have occurred that February evening in 2001 are not material to any of Penn State's potential culpability in this case. Sandusky could have committed no crime that night and Penn State could still be guilty of not reporting by failing to follow the proper procedures for a valid suspected claim. Conversely Sandusky could have been raping the child that night and Penn State could still have done the right thing by following the proper procedures for a suspected claim even if that did not lead to Sandusky's arrest. Who was the victim of the claim is entirely immaterial to the process. Additionally it is unlikely we will ever know the true identity of Victim 2 with certainty because of the nature of the situation as it now stands.

No Vindication for Corbett et. Al. - PA politics and Keystone Corruption strike again

Ahead of the release of PA Attorney Kathleen Kane's review of the Sandusky investigation by H. Geoffery Moulton the various spin machines were out in force. PennLive and it's staff trotted out "anonymous" sources, likely from the Corbett camp who received the report for review, who stated it was "a complete vindication" of the Governor. In fact these sources went on to make the following statements.

Now that we have the full report from Mr. Moulton, let's take a deeper look at what evidence really is included. I would venture to state that it is far from vindication, and while it does not include any direct evidence that the Governor was playing politics, it contains enough to make some educated guesses. 

Many people have wondered why Sandusky was not immediately, or relatively quickly arrested. As we have seen in other instances in the Sandusky case, some very lucky breaks seemed to go Sandusky's way very early in the investigation. The first interview of Sandusky was conducted by CYS case worker Jessica Dershem and CYS solicitor Michael Angelelli with no law enforcement official present. Since the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) refused to cooperate with Mr. Moulton it is still unclear if this was deliberate or accidental. We only have Commissioner Noonan's word in his reply, the same man who famously blamed Joe Paterno for his moral failure in the indictment press conference in November 2011. 

In the interview of Sandusky there were already red flags that possible abuse was taking place as he admitted to some suspicious behavior that could be that of grooming (p.38 Moulton) such as "I can't honestly answer if my hands were below his pants". Shortly after the interview Dershem and Angelelli met with Gerald Rosamilia and "indicated" Sandusky for abuse. Just after this was Sandusky's next "lucky" break. When presented with a report on Sandusky Clinton County DA Michael Salisbury decided to send the case to Centre County DA Michael Madeira supposedly because most of the alleged conduct occurred in Centre County. That meant that Sandusky would get to defend himself against these allegations on his "home turf" where he had lots of people who would be protecting various interests around The Second Mile and Penn State. The county where Sandusky had already seemed to get quite lucky in avoiding charges in 1998. Not only did the case get bumped to his home county, but in another twist of lucky fate, Madeira was married to a sibling of one Sandusky's adopted children, meaning the case got handed directly to the OAG and Tom Corbett per state conflict of interest policies. 

One central argument to this complex case has been that a grand jury was needed to investigate a complicated case of child sexual assault (CSA).  It is important to note that Frank Fina claims this was his decision ultimately.On it's face there is absolutely nothing wrong with that determination since a grand jury has certain powers that provide an advantage. Two key powers are the ability to compel testimony and the ability to operate in secret. However it appears in this case that the grand jury advantages were rarely used in the early years of the case. Unlike what is required in a CSA case under statute the OAG did not create a multidisciplinary team to pursue the charges in the Sandusky case. What they did immediately was add a local State College agent to the case, Agent Sassano. Was this a move by the OAG to plant a local with knowledge to help, or hinder the investigation, or was it merely a factor of the lack of resource due to unwillingness to unearth Sandusky evidence and/or other investigations like Bonusgate? No one knows. 

Another early event that should have led to an obvious place, The Second Mile, but didn't was the corroborating information on grooming behaviors given to  Trooper Cavanaugh by F.P. and F.A.. Both boys confirmed that they met Sandusky through his charity and both boys described similar grooming actions as Fisher, though neither alleged actual sexual abuse. At this point it would seem fairly evident that Sandusky was using his charity for selection of possible victims. Along with the two boys, other odd behavior was testified to at the Grand Jury by CMHS wrestling coach Miller and Assistant Principal Turchetta. This testimony included the fact that Sandusky was "controlling", "clingy", and "needy" with his Second Mile children at CMHS. 

Despite this corroborating evidence that seemed to connect Sandusky's behavior to the children at his charity no subpoenas were served to TSM, nor any employees, nor for any TSM records. In fact in September of 2009 Sassano actually suggested four possible steps. Obtain a search warrant for Sandusky's home, contact the Philadelphia Eagles about tickets Sandusky may have obtained for Fisher, access Sandusky's employment records at PSU, and subpoena Centre County CYS for similar complaints about Sandusky. No mention of the one place that ties Sandusky to all of the strange and/or criminal behaviors, The Second Mile. Only two of the suggestions ever occurred and it was not until almost 18 months and 2 years later that they occurred. As of the end of 2009 there had been 5 Grand Jury sessions regarding Sandusky and despite ample reason to connect the possible crimes to his charity, not one action had been taken in that regards. This is despite the statement to the Grand Jury by Eshbach that "– my bosses want us to pursue every angle. They have said, you know, go where the evidence leads". 

Conspicuously the next action taken in 2010 was a subpoena to Penn State for Sandusky's employment records. Despite at least three independent children connecting possible grooming/abuse to Sandusky's charity, Eschbach explained the PSU subpoena this way:

"The reason for the issuance of the subpoena to Penn State is because we have some suspicion that the university may have become aware of Sandusky’s inappropriate behavior towards the many young boys he was in contact with while he was employed at the university, through his creation and participation in the Second Mile Program. Sandusky was routinely surrounded by young men, although we have been unable to develop any victims other than the one minor victim who has testified before the Grand Jury. However, it is worthy of note that  Sandusky left Penn State as the defensive coordinator of the very successful, Division One-A Penn State Nittany Lion Football team at a relatively young age and rather abruptly. Although [it] is obvious that he was not going to be Joe Paterno’s successor at any time in [the] near future at the time of his retirement, it was at the time odd that he retired so abruptly. We therefore are seeking any records which might indicate that his reason for leaving the university’s employ was other than by his own choice. I recognize that it is possible that the records might be sanitized concerning this but believe after consulting with the investigators and many of you, that is a lead we must pursue."

Apparently a vague suspicion, based on no hard evidence, about the circumstances of Sandusky's retirement was more than enough cause to subpoena PSU records, but actual testimony from people connected to TSM was not. This defies all logic to a lay person.

At the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010 there were three other developments that warrant mention. The first is that being 2010, an election year for the PA governor's office, all eyes were on Tom Corbett who was running for Governor. The second was that Eshbach began working on a draft presentment to give to the Grand Jury for possible approval. The third item was that due to his increasing responsibility in the Bonusgate trial of Mike Veon, which no doubt was a key optic for Corbett in his election campaign, Fina temporarily asked off the case. In his place Glenn Parno, the chief deputy of the Environmental  Crimes section of the Criminal Law Division, temporarily assumed Fina's duties for the Sandusky case. Yes, you read that correctly, and environmental crime agent took over duty for a child sex abuse case. That tells you all you need to know about how seriously Corbett and Fina took this investigation in reality. 

These developments meant that by the time she finished the draft presentment, Eshbach submitted it to Parno rather than Fina. Eshbach, according to her own statements, was under no illusion that the case against Sandusky would be easy, but felt this was one way to open up new leads. She believed Fisher, had corroboration of odd behavior by Sandusky from others, and hoped that filing the charges would encourage other victims to come forward knowing they were no longer alone. This is confirmed by none other than expert Ken Lanning in his manual on Child Molestors: 

Because of the volume of crime, limited resources, and lack of knowledge about the nature of the crime, many law-enforcement agencies are unable or unwilling to continue an investigation to find more than a couple of victims. If that is the case they must try to identify as many victims as possible. Other victims are sometimes identified through publicity about the case. 

On March 15th the draft presentment had been edited with the help of Parno and forwarded to Sheetz for review. Eshbach told the Grand Jury that she hoped to have it approved and in front of them very soon. Little did she know, this case was not important enough to Corbett or Fina and she would get the run around for quite some time. In April she was told that Fina was "holding this to talk to you". Sometime in late April or early May Fina reviewed the draft for the first time. Despite claiming he felt the the case was too weak, he suggested changes in the draft. If he felt the case was weak why would he ask for changes to a presentment that Eshbach wanted to present immediately? 

In June Eshbach continued to inquire about the presentment approval. She was at one point told by Sheetz that "Bill Ryan was to give it to Tom (Corbett). I will check." Bill Ryan was of course the infamous man who changed the retention policy of the OAG so as to effectively attempt to remove the email communications about this case after the fact. In July Eshbach once again inquired via email about the presentment and once again an email indicates that Tom Corbett would be spoken to. Nothing happened. Yet again in August Eshbach brought up the issue and this time Fina himself replied "We are still working on the case, looking for better corroboration of our single victim. We need to do everything possible to find other victims." Yet still no question of looking to TSM. Sometime after the July email, likely in August, Corbett held a meeting with Sheetz, Ryan, and Fina in which they decided not to charge the case as is at the time. What I find interesting is that the meeting apparently involved no one with an opposing point of view. All three people Corbett spoke to had expressed doubt about the case, and Eshbach was not included. Is it any wonder the outcome was no presentment? Was that the plan all along?

What is interesting here is that the spring and summer when Eshbach was ignored is primary season, and August is the beginning of the general campaign after people return from summer vacations. Almost no action occurred on the case in these times. 

Soon after this, in September 2010, a public announcement was made that Sandusky would retire from Second Mile. The only reason given was the usual, "spend more time with family" type stuff. Sometime in the fall we find yet another suspicious event occur. Fisher reports that he was approached at school by a man who asked about his identity and his involvement with The Second Mile. 

In late October Aaron Fisher's mother reports to Trooper Rossman that some internet forums contain information about Sandusky being a child molestor, which according to Moulton's report were apparently triggered (doubtful, more later) by his retirement notice. After follow up it was determined none of the posters had first hand knowledge to further the investigation. 

What happened next is touted as the "big break" in the case. On November 2nd, Attorney General Corbett won the PA Gubenatorial election. Then on November 3rd, Eshbach sent an email to Fina stating her concern about Fisher's well being and the fact that on election night a Centre Daily Times reported knocked on the family's door asking questions about The Second Mile and Sandusky. As of yet the investigation had not been made public, so this meant there was a leak somewhere. That same day, November 3rd, brought the miracle break that would be the "watershed moment" in the investigation, the infamous "Concerned Citizen" email tip about Mike McQuery. 

That's quite the timing isn't it? The day after the election, and the day after a CDT reporter showed up at Fisher's house someone emails the State College DA with the break in the case. A case that would go on to destroy one of the largest and most respected universities in the country. Just...after....election....day. What is even further confounding about this miracle tip is several items. From regular users on the message board where this was discussed I have confirmed that the discussion of this topic regarding Sandusky's propensity for pre-teen/teen boys occurred as early as 2006. It is also well know that the tipster (now identified among many in the PSU football community but I will not use his name or handle here) had a well known penchant for disliking and/or wanting the ouster of Joe Paterno as head coach for several years. So ask yourself this, why did this citizen only become concerned in late 2010 and not in 2006 when this topic was discussed on the message boards?

In January 2011 several Penn State employees were called before the Grand Jury. Also in January the State College police provided an incident report about the 1998 incident, though Fina recalls having at least a partial copy earlier, perhaps in November or December (Moulton footnote 124). The questioning of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz at the GJ occurred and The Second Mile was finally issued a subpoena on January 28th, conveniently 10 days after Corbett was sworn in as Governor. However despite now having at least two victims, possibly 3 (second boy in shower incident in 1998) and independent confirmation of grooming behavior, all coming from boys at his charity no warrant was issued to search Sandusky's home or the Second Mile facilities for evidence. In fact in March 2011 Jack Raykovitz told the Patriot News that he was assured The Second Mile and it's programs was not a target of the investigation. Once again this defies logic. 

On March 31st Sarah Ganim of the Patriot News published the first article in which it was revealed that Sandusky was indeed the target of a grand jury investigation relating to child sexual abuse. Once this article was public one major reason for the use of the Grandy Jury, and the delay in arresting Sandusky, vanished. At this point it is hard to see why Sandusky was not charged and arrested. Instead a warrant was not issued to search his home for almost three months (executed on June 21 2011, two weeks after an email from Sassano to Feathers that detailed why Sandusky should be arrested "asap") despite the fact that the March 31 article generated two almost immediate leads in the infamous "janitor" incident (see www.notpsu.blogspot.com for detailed analysis of this hoax) and another victim known as B.S.H. Instead two weeks later Frank Fina asked for and recieved a gag order on all GJ witnesses, a highly unusual move. Also of note is that the evidence cited in the search warrant (Moulton Appendix O) was not substantially materially different than the evidence that investigators had since 2009 when the case initially started. 

After March the investigation picked up the pace significantly, with multiple other victims being discovered or coming forward over the next several months. Despite this there still had not been any Sandusky arrest. In fact as many know Sandusky was not arrested until November 2011, when someone "inadvertently" posted the indictment on the PA judicial system website.

So in summary this is how the basic timeline went down:

Late 2008 - Sandusky reported for alleged abuse of Fisher, cased pushed up to OAG, multiple confirmations of allegations by others at CMHS. Despite connections to TSM kids no warrants issued for Sandusky or TSM

Late 2008-Late 2009 - Limited resources appropriated to grand jury despite "significance" of case. Almost none of the advantages of a GJ investigation are used, despite that being the justification for it's choice in this case. 

Early 2010 - Penn State issued subpoena based on vague suspicion that Sandusky's retirement was odd.

Ealry 2010-August 2010 - Eshbach almost entirely ignored by superiors for 5-6 months, coinciding with Primary Season in PA Governors Election. A campaign in which the Governor received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from TSM and it's board members. 

August 2010 - Corbett denies presentment just prior to kickoff of fall election season

September 2010 - Sandusky retirement publicly reported

November 3, 2010 - The day after election "miracle" tip comes in that opens up new potential victims even though it was known on message boards for ~4 years. 

January 2011 - Days after Corbett is sworn in, several PSU employees finally testify and TSM is subpoenaed. 

March 2011 - First public report of investigation by Sara Ganim. Unleashes an eventual torrent of victims. 

June 2011 - Sandusky home finally searched. 

November 2011 - Sandusky finally arrested. 

So you decide. Is there an email or recorded phone conversation in which Tom Corbett states he is intentionally delaying the investigation? No. Does is smell awful rank? Like I said, you decide. 

UPDATE 23Jul2014: Research I did this morning in reference to another item has now provided evidence that the OAG is lying about learning of the Victim 2 incident being found through the email from "A Concerned Citizen". In the picture below you can see that Penn Live reporter David Jones states that he heard a graphic account of this incident in August of 2010. This is substantial evidence the OAG is lying, and that once again reporters at the Patriot News are covering for them. This picture is taken from the following website of a question and answer session Jones did after the Freeh report was released.