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. 

Did the PSU Board of Trustees plan the consent decree in advance?

As we approach what could be a banner day in the saga of the Jerry Sandusky scandal I came across an email in Ryan Bagwells document database that caught my eye. As most of us know the Freeh Report was released on July 12, 2012 and the NCAA sanctions came down on July 23, 2012. In the interim reports began to slowly trickle out about impending doom via several outlets. You can see an example here via ESPN on July 17, 2012. Other examples of contemporary stories are here, here, and here.

Tellingly in the ESPN article is this statement:

Emmert also said that he expects to hear back from Penn State "within weeks" regarding questions the NCAA has issued about the case, including the issue of institutional control. He consistently has maintained that the NCAA will not determine whether violations occurred until receiving the school's response.

Notice the timing there. "Within weeks" and "until receiving a response" were used by Emmert. Yet 6 short days later came the most destructive sanctions in the history of NCAA sports. In the interim PSU released no official letter, report, or review of the Freeh Report to determine it's reliability on the issues. However take a look at the email I linked to. The email is marked "high" importance and asks all voting members of the PSUBoT for a briefing call no later than that day, and included a story on the Duke Lacrosse scandal and the public relations of such situations.

Here is a screen capture of the most important parts, my emphasis added.

Now many know that at the time the discussion at PSU had started to center around Joe Paterno's statue at Beaver Stadium. Calls had begun to remove the statue after Louis Freeh made his defamatory and laughable conclusions in his report. Just three days after this briefing call the statue was removed, and the very next day the NCAA hammered PSU with unprecedented sanctions. 

What is curious is the need for a briefing call for all voting members rather than just the executive committee, or any briefing at all. The statement released by PSU clearly states that Rodney Erickson made the determination on his own about the statue. 

I now believe that, contrary to its original intention, Coach Paterno’s statue has become a source of division and an obstacle to healing in our University and beyond. For that reason, I have decided that it is in the best interest of our university and public safety to remove the statue and store it in a secure location.

So what was this briefing call for? Why did they need all voting members? Rodney Erickson and the board claimed they did not need the board to vote on the sanctions so why did they need to include voting members for removing a statue? Ron Tomalis inquires in a further email asking if it is about the statue, and that since there is no vote it won't be covered by the Sunshine act. But why? No vote need be taken, and why include the article on Duke?

When you put it in the bigger picture I have to wonder what was going on here. The NCAA has explicitly stated they might take weeks to respond, and can do so formally as a response to the letter of notice sent at the outset of the Sandusky scandal in 2011. This was the normal procedure for an NCAA investigation, and it could have dragged on for years. Yet just four short days later Erickson signed away PSU's rights in the worst deal ever recorded in NCAA history. Why? What was discussed on this briefing call? Since no vote was taken there was no recording made. Was caving to the NCAA considered and discussed to appease the media and drive PR to "position itself on the right side of history"(based on a precedent from a case that did not turn out as reported as well)? One has to wonder. One also has to wonder how the PSUBoT keep ending up on the wrong side of history.

The Obfuscation of Jerry Sandusky

My last post looked at whether Dottie Sandusky, wife of Jerry, really believed in his innocence. Today I want to use information gleaned from Jerry's words himself to analyze why she had good reason to doubt her husband's innocence. Some of this information is taken directly from Jerry's mouth in his prison interview in early 2013. There is also evidence from other interviews like the one by Jo Becker of the NY Times, along with testimony in court by professionals of Jerry's psychological profile.

Let's start with an incident most people who follow this case, and many who don't, know about. Early on after Jerry's indictment he called in to an interview with Bob Costas. The interview starts off normal enough, with Jerry stating "I am innocent of those charges".

However shortly afterwards there are questionable responses to some other questions. Shortly into the interview this exchange occurs:

Costas: During one of those conversations, you said, "I understand, I was wrong, I wish I could get forgiveness," speaking now with the mother. "I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead." A guy falsely accused or a guy whose actions have been misinterpreted doesn't respond that way, does he?

Sandusky: I don't know. I didn't say, to my recollection that I wish I were dead. I was hopeful that we could reconcile things

I find this exchange curious. Sandusky's response is that he didn't  recall saying he wished he were dead. He did not dispute that he was wrong, or that he needed forgiveness. He was hopeful to "reconcile" things. If he did nothing wrong what was to reconcile? It also casts doubt on Dottie's implication that it never happened, as Jerry does not deny the conversation took place.

Then we come to the most infamous exchange of the interview. Costas directly challenges Sandusky with the following question:

Costas: Are you a pedophile?
Sandusky: No
Costas: Are you sexually attracted to underage boys?
Sandusky: Am I sexually attracted to young boys?
Costas: Yes
Sandusky: Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys

Sandusky repeats the question/statement twice and doesn't say no to sexual attraction until his third sentence in the second answer. Do you find that strange? In the audio it is even worse. You can hear the pause, feel the searching. Luckily for us Sandusky addresses this exchange in his prison interview from early 2013.

On page 82 of his prison interview, Jerry tells us the story of the Costas interview, more specifically of that question. When asked why he hesitated when answering that question he states:

Sandusky: So I was not expecting anything like that. When that question was asked I’m
thinking my thoughts all were on what I call the victims of this. I was thinking
about all the people that gotten hurt. My frame of reference was not whether or
not I was sexually attracted to boys. Ok, my frame of reference was all these
people that were going to get hurt. My frame of reference was to always to try
help. I didn’t think in those kinds of terms. I was taken aback. I’ve never been
asked anything like that in my life. I said to myself, I want to be honest. I want to
clear. I want to be fair. And when he asked the question, I was trying to think in
my mind, is he saying do I like young people? You know, what is he saying? I
was trying to get it into my mind. Yeah, I love young people. I enjoy..My two
favorite groups are the young and the old. One doesn’t know any better and the
other just doesn’t care. So those kinds of thoughts were going thru my mind. It
really didn’t even register with me that that would be a question to ask.... I don't
know.

There are a couple of real telling points in there. Is Sandusky actually trying to make us believe that after being arrested for alleged rape and molestation of children over decades that he never expected a question about his sexual attraction? That just doesn't stand up to any logic or scrutiny. Secondly Sandusky is implying somehow that the question was confusing, when it was quite clear. Lastly is his description of the two groups of people he loves. Look at what he says about the young. "One doesn't know any better". Exactly the kind of trait which makes them easy prey. Combine that with the following paragraph from the interview on page 81:

So the young "don't know any better" and when you choose disadvantaged and troubled young you have easy ways to raise suspicion about their claims. 

These signs of guilt and hesitation are evident in other interviews as well. If you look closely at the interview with Jo Becker, around the 4:00 mark you can see the hesitation in answering. You can see the inability of Sandusky to make eye contact. He looks down, he looks away. He looks everywhere but at the interviewer when answering about details in regards to the 2001 case. 

A little later in that interview Sandusky has to actually be interrupted by his lawyer to clarify something he says. Examining the interview around the 7:00 mark he discusses the Costas question and again claims to be caught off guard. He then explains that he is "attracted" to young people, both boys and girls. However his lawyer quickly interjects from off camera "not sexually". Seems once again Sandusky left some doubt there as to his true feelings.

Looking a little more at Jerry's prison interview certainly provides us with other nuggets of inconsistency and consciousness of guilt. The first one comes very early on page 3. In discussing the parameters of the interview Jerry states that one issue is "I don't want to incriminate myself". Incriminate yourself of what? You are claiming you didn't commit any crimes. That is an interesting statement from an "innocent" man. However when you read the interview closer you can see why he might have said that.

On page 40 Jerry steadfastly refuses to give out the name of alleged Victim 2, but then goes on to describe enough detail to make it fairly easy to track him down. Sandusky offers multiple details about his high school graduation, wedding, his senior football season at high school, and after Ziegler moves on offers up "He's in the marines". Does that sound like Sandusky trying to hide his identity?

Why might Sandusky want this man found and publicized? Perhaps it's because Sandusky had already met with this alleged Victim 2 in the summer of 2011. Yes, Sandusky had been in contact with multiple witnesses against him in the trial. Was this an attempt by Sandusky to elicit information about what they might say or perhaps an attempt to shade their testimony his way? Maybe Sandusky knows that he didn't abuse the victim that night in 2001, but had on other occasions. Perhaps Sandusky knew anyone finding this victim would muddy the case against him at this point. Either way it's pretty clear he had no issue with people "finding" this victim. His lawyer though is on record publicly saying he has doubts this is truly Victim 2. 

Another red flag regarding Victim 2 is Sandusky's version of how Tim Curley contacted him about the 2001 incident. On page 50 of the prison interview Sandusky concedes that he denied the incident originally in 2001. When asked why he states:

Sandusky: Because I didn't know what I did. I was trying to figure out who was in the shower with me or whatever.

Remember Sandusky has steadfastly said he never did anything wrong. So regardless of what you did, why would you deny that you were in that shower if you did nothing wrong? Is it because unlike what you state in other parts of the interview you indeed knew that 1998 was a big deal and if you were caught in the shower again it would cause suspicion? Or is it because you had taken multiple boys into the showers in this time frame and you were honestly trying to remember which one it was and what you had actually done? 

With regards to his initial denial Sandusky seems confused about whether he immediately changed his tune or if it was at a second conversation. This would be a key point because if there was any amount of time in between it would give ample opportunity for Sandusky to speak with Victim 2 and get his story straight. 

When analyzing further Sandusky's claims about his memory and whether we should believe it we can also look at the identity of the witness to the 2001 incident and how Mike McQuery came to be known as that man. The first stop is page 38 of the prison interview. There the following exchange takes place:

Ziegler: So Tim Curley never told you it was Mike McQuery?
Sandusky: No. Tim Curley said it was a man or a woman (laughter). 

To those following the case this should be a golden nugget that Sandusky is lying and trying to cast doubt on others. At no time has anyone, not Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Paterno, or the OAG ever stated that the witness was a woman, ever. That's a pretty big detail to mess up. So big that it is impossible to believe Sandusky actually believes it. The only possible way this could be true is if the rumors that Sandusky was witnessed in other buildings with kids are what Sandusky is melding with the 2001 incident with McQuery. 

Additionally Sandusky then clearly in his interview lies about when he knew it was McQuery who was the witness. In fact Sandusky waffles several times on this. On page 66 is the exchange below:

If you look closely there you will see that Sandusky first implies that McQuery's name came out when Curley, Spanier, and Paterno's did. Then he backtracks. According to several local contacts I have spoken to it was common knowledge around town though that McQuery was "the GA" for a while prior to the indictment so it's likely Sandusky knew this already and is just looking for a way to claim he didn't. 

Additionally he waffles back on forth on when he even knew there was a grand jury. First he claims he didn't know until June 2011 (page 63). Then he changes it to "spring" of 2011 on page 65 and this is because his son Matt testified. Then you can see the exchange above where he professes to know of the March 2011 Ganim article, specifically for use of the term GA. So here we again have obfuscation of the timeline by Sandusky. Perhaps he is remembering incorrectly, which could be the case. However others are asking us to trust that he is the one recalling memory from 2001 about Victim 2. It seems more likely to me that OAG had already at this point found the notes on the file and knew the correct dates. 

I am not a professional psychologist. I have no professional training in behavior or psychology. So you don't have to trust just me, you can trust the professionals who examined Sandusky for his trial. They are very interesting, especially in light of the fact that Sandusky refuses to delve into the results of a lie detector test he took. John O'Brien testified to the results of psychological examinations of Sandusky on June 19, 2012 . His words are telling:

Notice the consistent theme. Sandusky is trying to bias the tests, and doing so by portraying himself in a more favorable light, or overly positive terms. This is a consistent theme if you analyze his words in his interviews too. He always says he was trying to help the kids, or be family. He never acknowledges truly how what he is doing may be harmful, or that it should be concerning since he was warned. Dr. O'Brien tells us that Sandusky fit two possible profiles.

Those two profiles he fit best are histrionic personality disorder, a disorder characterized by emotional excess, attention seeking behavior, flirtatiousness, and inappropriate seductive behavior. The other is narcissistic personality traits, a condition which can be described as one "in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process." (my emphasis added). His narcissism is surely evident on page 45 of the jailhouse interview where he speaks of himself in the third person. 

When you add it all up you see a picture of a man trying to obfuscate the truth. Delusional to the point of destructiveness, and concerned with portraying himself in the best possible light. He uses lies, half truths, misdirection, and the weakness of his victims to do so. He is so concerned about portraying himself in a positive light that he ignores the wide swath of destruction he has left behind. Everyone is out to get good ole Jerry. Jerry has never done anything to hurt anyone. Jerry says so. Don't believe it. 

Does Dottie Sandusky REALLY believe Jerry is Innocent? What her Interview with Matt Lauer can tell us.

Much has been made of Dottie Sandusky's recent round of TV interviews, mainly with Matt Lauer on the Today Show, trying to argue for her husband's innocence. Many people have focused on why she said what she said or acted how she acted over the years. Some think she had to know who her husband was, some think she is in denial. I wanted to take a different angle today and focus more specifically on what she said and what we can glean from it. Dottie went on TV with her best poker face, but at the same time she did reveal some tells. 

The man who sat by Dottie's side, self-proclaimed "documentary film maker" John Ziegler, has been vociferous in his defenses of Dottie. He states that for the victims to be telling the truth that Dottie has to be lying. So let's use Dottie's own "testimony" here to evaluate her claims and the "truth-seeker's" failure to correct the factual record.

Unfortunately there is no official transcript of the Today show video which began her tour but you can view it online in it's entirety here to see for yourself.

The first very important exchange occurs around the 14:50 mark:

Lauer: So what was it like to sit in that courtroom and hear story after story after story leveled, and charges, leveled against your husband?

Sandusky: Because I knew that the majority of the stories were not completely true.


This is key. It is key for the simple reason that Dottie Sandusky never heard those stories leveled by the accusers in that courtroom as she only attended the trial the day she testified, which was long after the victims had done so.

 When questioned on Twitter about this topic Ziegler simply stated it was "meaningless error":

@micheIUP @wensilver LOL yep, U got me. I did not correct Matt Lauer in meaningless error in question to someone else. You've cracked case!
— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) March 30, 2014

So is it relevant that Dottie and Ziegler allowed it to be implied she personally listened to the accusers charges first hand in court when she didn't? John would never stand for such a lie to go unchallenged if it hurt his argument but here he did because it helped him. As an expert (supposedly) in "media malpractice" Ziegler knows full well why this is an important point, optics and perception. Viewers would think that Dottie was there cheering on her man from day one, all the time, against these lying kids. 

Why did Dottie and Ziegler think it was "meaningless" that Dottie did not show up to support her husband? Perhaps it's because viewers might reasonably conclude that Dottie's absence is a tell that she knew her husband was guilty? If she truly believed her husband's innocence she would be there front and center in court, right? I really wish Matt Lauer would have had this correct and could have pressed this point. A great question would have been "Why didn't you support your husband by coming to his trial?"

This was not the only instance of troubles with what Dottie said to Matt Lauer.

Starting at the 37:00 mark of the interview is this exchange:

Lauer: Can you give me an example of something that he told you that he was truthful about that hurt? What were you referring to there?

Sandusky:  Gee that's hard to decide. To say. Of the...I can't really think of anything.  He told.. I guess..maybe it was the 98 incident.  He told me about that. He told me exactly what happened when that happened. 

Lauer: What was your reaction when he told you about showering with that young man in 1998?"

Sandusky:  I didn't think anything about it because he showered........he showered with our kids."

Notice how Dottie answers the question about what hurt her with Jerry telling her "exactly what happened" about the 1998 incident but then quickly switches to saying that she "didn't think anything about it". Which is it, did it hurt or did you not think anything of it? If this was "who Jerry was" and he was doing nothing wrong, why would it hurt when he told you?

The exchange continued:

Lauer: One of the victims said he showered with him and hugged him. In the shower, while they were naked in the shower. Someone did that to one of your children and your children came home and told you that, wouldn't you think that's inappropriate?  That's hugely inappropriate.

Sandusky: I would. Yes, but, I would..I...I..I don't necessarily know that that happened. And maybe it did. Maybe Jerry said (trails off).

So what originally was "he told me exactly what happened" about 1998 ends up morphing to "I don't necessarily know that that happened". Is Dottie trying to convince us of her husband's innocence here, or herself? Initially the story she was told by her husband "hurt" and then became something that didn't happen. This is a massive contradiction. Is this a woman trying to rationalize her husband's behavior, behavior that he admitted to? 

The next exchange which raises eyebrows begins at 46:19: 

Dottie: The department of whatever it is, the department of..I don't know the title [Department of Public Welfare]. They...they came in and they checked into it, and they said that there was nothing to it. 

Of course if, as Ziegler claims, Dottie (and himself) knows more about this case than most she must certainly know that this is a red herring and always has been. On this point Dottie is misleading in two aspects. First the only trained, licensed psychologist to interview the child in this case, Dr. Alycia Chambers, did indeed sound the alarm of abuse to the state agencies in 1998 in her report. Second, the investigator who lead that case, DPW's Jerry Lauro, has stated on record that he would have made a "different decision" if he had seen Chamber's report.  Third, University Park police Detective Ronald Schreffler testified that he felt there was enough to bring charges in the case. And finally, Sandusky was in fact convicted for 3 crimes for that incident at his June 2012 trial.

If Dottie truly is as knowledgeable about the case as Ziegler claims, then she would know that 1998 was incorrectly decided at the time. Even the person who at the time indicated no finding now says he was wrong, perhaps he might say "with the benefit of hindsight"?

The other red herring that is used by Zielger and Dottie is that the 1998 victim continued his relationship with Jerry Sandusky without incident. This is typical behavior among preferential sexual offenders. They gradually test boundaries to make their subjects comfortable. However once concerns are raised the grooming stops. This is exactly what happened with Victim 6. Once the boy and mother raised concerns to authorities Jerry Sandusky knew the boy was off limits for further grooming and abuse. Thus the idea that they continued an abuse free relationship for 13 more years is not indicative at all of the initial abuse. 

All of these items lead one to wonder whether Dottie is being one hundred percent truthful in her statements regarding her husband and his innocence. It certainly goes to the credibility of her information. 

I do have true sympathy for Dottie. I don't believe her to be an evil woman from what I have seen. However, she like many others who  were selected by Jerry, was groomed to believe that her husband's behavior was simply "Jerry being Jerry" when it was really the behavior of a pedophile. I have no idea how hard it must be as your whole life comes crashing down around you and to admit that you were fooled by "The Great Pretender." 

I leave you with one last statement, direct from Dottie's mouth. At the 11:42 mark Dottie states: "The kids say I am very naive". 

Those may be the truest words she spoke the entire interview.