Friday, July 14

Bagwell Docs Confirm 2nd Mile Deceptions

Documents confirm The Second Mile leaders lied to members and kept them – and the public -- in the dark about Sandusky’s abuse allegations.

Ray Blehar

July 14, 2017, 9:01 AM EDT. Updated 12:42 PM on July 14, 2017.

A limited and heavily redacted trove of documents obtained by PSU alumnus Ryan Bagwell confirmed  that leaders of The Second Mile (TSM) charity kept board members and others in the dark about Jerry Sandusky.

Bagwell’s documents, obtained via FOIA requests of the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), include interviews with two apparent PSU employees and six other individuals associated with TSM.   Two of the TSM interviews are so heavily redacted that they are unintelligible.   As a result, there are four usable interviews from TSM associated persons

Those interviews confirm that TSM’s leadership:

- Did not disclose the 2008 allegations were sexual in nature;

- Stated that the 2008 allegation did not involve a TSM child;

- Did not disclose the 2001 abuse allegations about Sandusky until after the November presentment was released;

- Deceived members about Sandusky’s post-2009 role at the charity; and

- Endangered the welfare of children – a criminal offense.

Not Sexual In Nature
The charity told three of the four individuals that the 2008 allegations were not sexual in nature and that it involved a complaint from a disgruntled mother and/or disgruntled child.

According to the Sandusky trial transcripts, the 2008 accuser, Aaron Fisher, initially reported on November 20, 2008, that he had been in bed with Sandusky on numerous occasions and had (sexual) contact over clothes for a three year period.  This information was documented in Clinton County CYS’s intake report.  CYS caseworker Jessica Dershem confirmed, at the trial, that Fisher estimated 30 incidents of contact over clothing at various hotels.

According to the Moulton Report, on November 20, 2008, Clinton County Children and Youth Services Director, Gerald Rosamilia contacted TSM to inform it of sexual abuse allegations against a charity member.   Then TSM Vice-President for Development, Katherine Genovese, correctly guessed it was Sandusky.    According to various press reports, Genovese related that the charity had to tell him to “back off certain kids before” and that he had gotten “too close” to children.

Based on the evidence, it is clear that charity leaders were dishonest about the sexual nature of the 2008 allegation against Sandusky.

Not A TSM Child
Universally, the interviewees associated with TSM stated charity officials denied that a TSM child was involved in the 2008 allegations against Sandusky.

Obviously, that was a lie. 

Aaron Fisher, the victim who reported Sandusky in 2008 had been a member of TSM since he was 8.   Around the time of Fisher’s abuse report, Sandusky had been haranguing him about helping with TSM’s golf tournament.

TSM issued a public statement in March and Dr. Jack Raykovitz penned an op-ed in April 2011 that led the public to believe that the Sandusky investigation did not involve the charity or its programs and that there had never been any prior abuse allegations.

 Raykovitz penned an  Op-Ed regarding TSM's non-involvement in Sandusky matter.

2001 Allegations

Three of the four individuals remarked that they were “shocked” and/or “surprised” to learn of the 1998 and 2001 allegations against Sandusky when the various news stories broke.

In April 2011, after the Patriot News broke the story of the Sandusky grand jury,
charity leaders told the other board members that the grand jury investigation would be discussed privately and communicated later.  

When the grand jury presentment was leaked, causing a media firestorm, the interviewees mentioned being shocked to learn about the 2001 incident.   One of the interviewees added that at the November 13, 2011 board meeting, 4 or 5 board members were angry that they weren’t notified contemporaneously.

Another interviewee, who understood the expungement requirements for unfounded child abuse reports, added that “all of this could have been avoided” if the 1998 and 2001 incidents were reported – presumably to the TSM Board of Directors.

Sandusky’s Resignation and Retirement

Three of the four also had conflicting information regarding Sandusky’s role with the charity after 2009. 

One interviewee recalled attending the fall of 2009 meeting when Sandusky announced he was resigning due to “family matters.”  However, two of the others believed that Sandusky was part of the charity until he “retired” in 2010.

IRS records reveal that the charity last paid Sandusky for his “consulting” work for the year ending August 31, 2008 and that he was no longer listed as a director for the year ending August 31, 2009.  He was not paid or listed as a director after the year ending August 31, 2009. 

When Sandusky “retired” in 2010, the publicity surrounding the news was that he wanted to spend more time with his family.

From the September 17, 2010, Altoona Mirror:

In a letter addressed to friends of the organization, Sandusky said he is retiring from his day-to-day involvement from the organization he founded in 1977 to help Pennsylvania children develop self-esteem and reach their full potential.
Sandusky said he was doing so "to devote more time to my family and personal matters."

Sandusky’s 2010 retirement came as a surprise to two interviewees.

Endangering Children

While Sandusky was an unpaid volunteer starting in 2009, the charity kept his status under wraps and let the public, donors, employees, and some board members continue to believe that he was fully part of the charity.  One interviewee recalled the first he was informed of Sandusky’s abuse allegations was when he learned that Sandusky lost his ChildLine clearance in late 2009 – after he dropped his appeal.

At that point, Sandusky should have been excluded from all charity activities and not allowed any contact with children.

The interviewee also recalled Sandusky’s fall 2009 resignation and that the argument surrounding Sandusky’s status with the charity was “heated.”  Some argued that all ties should be severed, while others recommended Sandusky be kept on for fundraising purposes.

The “executive committee” of TSM recommended communicating the abuse allegations against Sandusky to the regional offices in order to “protect the kids,” but according to the interviewee, the TSM State Board of Directors quashed the idea

Note that in November 2009, The State Board of Directors included Senator Jake Corman, former PSU Board of Trustees member and fundraising expert, Cliff Benson, Bruce Heim, Robert Poole, and Dr. Jack Raykovitz (who all knew of the 2001 allegations), and several other big corporate donors.

One of the corporate donors, Louie Sheetz, stated:

"I know the people who run the golf outing said, 'He's a big reason why people come -- to see him.' That makes sense, in my opinion. That's not involved in programming,"

As reported by on May 31, 2017, Sandusky continued to contact children after the 2009 decision that he would exclusively be a fundraiser and not be involved in programming. 

In summary, the evidence reveals a course of conduct – a felony -- by charity officials’ decisions in 2001 and 2009 to allow Sandusky’s continued access to children.

Why the USDOJ in Harrisburg decided not to prosecute the charity for Endangering the Welfare of Children remains unknown, however it appears that Pennsylvania politics played into that decision.

Friday, July 7

NCAA Statement Ignores Evidence -- Again

The NCAA's statement claiming "total victory" in the Paterno lawsuit is delusional and not supported by the evidence on the public record.

Ray Blehar

July 7, 2017, 8:27 AM EST

On June 30, 2017, the NCAA released a statement that boasted “total victory” based on the Paterno, Et Al decision to withdraw from its civil lawsuit and for not taking the case to trial.

It also alleged that the “powerful record developed through discovery” supported its decision to adopt the key findings of the Freeh Report to sanction Penn State University Athletics and former head coach Joe Paterno.  

“The Paterno family characterized this case as a ‘search for the truth,’” said Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer. “Its decision today, after years of investigation and discovery, to abandon its lawsuit rather than subject those facts to courtroom examination is telling.  We believe that the powerful record developed during discovery overwhelmingly confirmed what the NCAA has believed all along: the NCAA acted reasonably in adopting the conclusions of an eight-month investigation by Louis Freeh.”

Remy noted the timing of today’s decision by the Paterno family to voluntarily abandon its lawsuit was only hours before the NCAA was due to file a roughly 100-page summary judgment brief detailing the results of years of exhaustive discovery regarding plaintiffs’ claims. He added the decision “represents a total victory for the NCAA.”

The Paterno’s lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the NCAA Consent Decree was imposed unlawfully and that the language used in it was false and defamatory.

In response to the NCAA’s statement, Sue Paterno called the NCAA’s assertions “absurd” and noted that it is the NCAA who is insistent on keeping the full facts of the case from becoming a matter of public record. She challenged the NCAA to make discovery available for public inspection.

History and all of the evidence remain firmly behind Sue Paterno.

Corman Thwarted NCAA Efforts to Hide the Truth

Prior to the 2015 settlement in the Corman/McCord case, the NCAA attempted to hide behind claims of attorney-client privilege in order to avoid turning over critical documents in discovery.  

Corman and McCord thwarted the NCAA’s efforts by including alleged privileged documents as exhibits in their November and December 2014 court filings.  Those exhibits exposed critical facts about the NCAA’s motivations and questionable actions in sanctioning the University, including its knowledge that there were no rules violations within the statute of limitations for an enforcement action.  

Without a legal leg to stand on, the NCAA decided to circumvent the traditional enforcement process in order to take action against PSU.  

Evidence revealed that these questionable acts came as a result of the NCAA’s desire to take advantage of the publicity surrounding the Freeh Report in an attempt to change its reputation as a weak enforcer. 

NCAA Director of Committee on Infractions Shep Cooper wrote in a July 4, 2012 email:

“…However, the new NCAA leadership is very image conscience and if they conclude that pursuing allegations against PSU would enhance the Association’s standing with the public, then an infractions case could follow. I know that Mark Emmert has made statements to the press indicating that he thinks it could fall into some sort of LOIC case. ‘Shooting road kill’ is an apt analogy.’
Documents Proved Freeh Report Did Not Establish LOIC

Many of the 4,900 documents released by Corman proved that the NCAA knew that the Freeh Report, which did not make any references to NCAA rules violations, was insufficient for its purposes of taking enforcement action against PSU.

Emails between Remy and Freeh Group revealed that NCAA President Mark Emmert wanted the Freeh group to make an additional statement to include the language of “lack of institutional control” in discussing the findings.   The Freeh Group refused, stating it was not part of their contractual arrangement (with PSU) to do so.

As a result, the NCAA charged PSU with a “lack of institutional integrity” – a term not defined anywhere in the NCAA Charter and By-Laws.  

The NCAA moved to dismiss the Corman case in October 2014, but Commonwealth Court Judge Anne Covey ruled the case would go to trial and that the legality of the consent decree – and by extension, use of the Freeh Report -- would be part of the case.

With the evidence on the public record heavily against them and knowing that a court case on the legality of the consent decree would be disastrous, the NCAA settled the case.

Corman:  “The NCAA has surrendered”

As a result of the settlement, the NCAA repealed and replaced the NCAA Consent Decree, restructured $60 million in fines, and restored 112 wins to the PSU football program, including 111 belonging to legendary coach Joe Paterno.  The restoration of wins put Paterno back at the top in terms of Division I (FBS) winning coaches.

Corman stated:

“Today is a victory for due process. Today is a victory for the people of Pennsylvania. Today is a victory for Penn State Nation.  The NCAA has surrendered. This is a total repeal of the consent decree, not a settlement. This is akin to the mercy rule. Clearly [the NCAA] was way behind in the case and they gave up.”

Legal System Proved NCAA Was Wrong to Use The Freeh Report

Even before the Freeh Report (and NCAA Consent Decree) had seen the light of day, the conclusions being drawn were not supported by the evidence.

A Freeh Report finding, quoted in the consent decree, falsely stated “the environment at Penn State, shaped by actions and the inactions of the leadership and board of Penn State allowed Sandusky’s serial sexual abuse of children.”   

The facts established during the Sandusky investigation and trial clearly proved that Sandusky’s serial victimization of children began before anyone at PSU was notified about allegations of inappropriate behavior in 1998.  

Prior to 1998, and unbeknownst to PSU officials, Sandusky was victimizing children on the PSU campus and elsewhere by virtue to his role as a mentor at The Second Mile.  His continued access to children after 1998 was also outside the control of PSU officials because child welfare agents (in 1998) concluded that he was not a danger to children and did not revoke his ChildLine clearance.  

The Sandusky trial did not confirm or provide evidence that PSU leaders had any knowledge of sexual abuse by Sandusky in 2001 or thereafter (until the news of the Sandusky grand jury investigation was broken).  As such, Freeh’s conclusion that PSU officials somehow “allowed” serial sexual abuse was false and defamatory and the legal folks at the NCAA knew or should have known that.

The March 2017 trial of Graham Spanier also refuted the Freeh Report’s conclusion that Spanier “did not advise the Board of Trustees about the 1998 and 2001 child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky.”   

Although PSU officials Gary Schultz and Tim Curley pleaded to misdemeanor counts of endangering children, neither Schultz nor Curley testified to being informed of sexual abuse allegations in 1998 and 2001.  Moreover, they testified that they told Spanier that the 2001 incident involved only horseplay.   Because there was no evidence that Spanier was ever told about sexual abuse allegations in 1998 and 2001, he could not have advised the Board about them.

Finally, no testimony or evidence was ever brought forward in any proceeding to support the Freeh Report’s and NCAA Consent Decree’s assertion that PSU official’s actions were influenced or motivated by the fear of the “consequences of bad publicity.”

In conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the Freeh Report’s key conclusions used to penalize PSU Athletics were premature, based on scant evidence, and wrong.

But when did evidence ever matter to the NCAA?

Monday, June 26

CNN Must Also Retract 1971 Paterno Story

Sara Ganim's incredulous report about a 1971 report to Paterno by an alleged Sandusky victim fails to meet journalism standards

Ray Blehar

June 26, 2017:  10:15AM EDT, Revised 1:14 PM

Recently, CNN retracted and removed all links to a political story because the story failed to meet its editorial standards.   It needs to do the same for its May 6, 2016 story about an alleged Sandusky victim who allegedly made a 1971 report to then Penn State University (PSU) football coach, Joe Paterno.

CNN's 1971 story was authored by Sara Ganim, who received a 2012 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting about the Jerry Sandusky scandal.  As such, Ganim knew or should have known that the victim's allegations did not comport with Sandusky's modus operandi as an acquaintance offender.    

Unreliable Corroborating Source
Ganim's history as a PSU student and as a crime and courts reporter at the Centre Daily Times also adds to the lack of journalistic integrity because she knew or should have known the story's corroborating source, Bernie McCue, was known for erratic behavior, despised Joe Paterno, and was otherwise unreliable. 

Unreliable source:  Ganim used a well-known Paterno hater to corroborate the 1971 story.

To make matters worse, Ganim chose McCue's corroborating account over a Pennsylvania State Trooper who was also a friend of the alleged victim -- and did not find his friend’s story to be credible.

Although Ganim won a Pulitzer Prize for her Sandusky coverage, it was for local – not investigative – reporting.   Evaluations conducted by found  numerous errors, half-truths, and omissions the ten stories that were submitted to the Pulitzer committee.

Her 1971 story was no different.

Wrong from the Start
An honest fact-check of the story would have found almost none of it to be true, starting with Ganim’s assertion that the alleged victim was the oldest known victim.  

“But for many of the victims, it's not ambiguous. Like for Victim A, a 60-year-old State College native and Sandusky's oldest known victim.”

Just as many local news reports on the public record revealed that Ganim consistently erred in stating that The Second Mile separated Jerry from all programs involving children after his 2009 abuse finding, a KDKA Pittsburgh report from October 2012  revealed that a then 57-year-old was abused by Sandusky over 40 years ago.  That man would be at least 60 or 61 at the time Ganim penned her story.

Allegations Do Not Fit Sandusky’s Modus Operandi
More significantly, however, is that the KDKA report confirmed Sandusky was operating as an acquaintance offender dating back to his time at the Brownson House in his hometown of Washington, Pennsylvania. The then 57-year-old man was one of three men Sandusky victimized there.  

Sandusky's acquaintance offending likely began in his teen years at the Brownson House

This story and the facts established at the Sandusky trial refuted a key point of Ganim’s story that Sandusky offended against a hitch-hiker (i.e., stranger).

All of Sandusky’s victims from the trial came as a result of Sandusky’s relationship with them through his charity.   Ganim, who covered the trial, obviously had to recognize that Victim A’s allegations did not fit Sandusky’s pattern of victimizing children he had befriended.

Next, none of Sandusky’s victims from the trial alleged that he provided them with drugs or alcohol.  Ganim's Victim A alleged that Sandusky bought him beer and gave him pot before physically assaulting him.  He was also considered a straight-arrow growing up as a teen and in college.  He wasn't known to attend fraternity parties.  In fact, Sandusky was well known as a church-going, teetotaler.  

Last but not least, no known victim or claimant – other than Victim A – alleged that Sandusky physically assaulted them before forcibly raping them.   Again, this conduct would be far outside the realm for an acquaintance/serial offender whose success relies upon gaining the trust of the victim – who will remain silent about the victimization.

Too Good To Fact Check
CNN’s story goes even further into the realm of the incredible after the alleged rape took place.

In a series of events only the extremely gullible could believe, Victim A’s injuries are noticed by his foster mother at breakfast the next morning.  After some prodding, the alleged victim tells his foster mother what happened.   Next, the foster mother and her husband – against Victim A’s wishes– inform the young man that they are going to report the incident to PSU officials, adding that nothing will happen because PSU won’t call the police.

Any reasonable person would find this story to be highly unlikely and question why the parents didn’t go directly to police to report the assault and rape of a foster child.  Moreover, a reasonable person would question the fitness of these individuals as foster parents and ask questions about them.   

But Ganim isn't a reasonable person.  She needed the story to be singularly focused on Paterno.

Not only do the guardians of the young man then follow through on their call PSU, but they insist that the 15-year old boy tell his story to none other than Joe Paterno.  

Like the questionable account of Mike McQueary, Victim A stated he did not tell Paterno he was raped, but that he made it very clear “it was a sexual attack.”

Paterno’s Response:  Ganim and CNN Fail History
The credibility of the story completely failed when Victim A recalled Paterno’s handling of his report (emphasis added).

"I made it clear there were things done to me that I just can't believe could have been done to me and I couldn't escape. I said, 'I'm very upset and scared and I couldn't believe I let my guard down.' They listened to me. And then all hell broke loose.

"They were asking me my motive, why I would say this about someone who has done so many good things."

Jerry Sandusky did not establish The Second Mile until 1977.   He had no track record of good deeds that would have prompted such a response from Paterno.

In 1971, Jerry Sandusky had been on the PSU coaching staff for just two years and had just begun coaching linebackers, having switched from defensive line coach. At that point in his tenure, he was not an indispensable part of the staff.   Sandusky was, in fact, replacing somewhat of a coaching legend – Dan “Bad Rad” Radakovich, who left PSU for the Steelers.

There was nothing in 1971 that would have stopped Paterno from doing exactly what he did in 2001 – which was to take the report seriously and forward it to his superiors.

CNN Must Retract Story
Much like Sabrina Erdley's now infamous Rolling Stone story of an alleged a gang rape of "Jackie" by members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia (UVa), the evidence shows that CNN's desire to write a sensational story led them to a fatal flaw of journalism in writing a story that was "too good to check."

The Rolling Stone story was criticized by UVa's President because it damaged serious efforts to combat sexual violence on campus.  Similarly, CNN's story did nothing to combat sexual violence against children and, as history shows neither CNN nor Ganim pursued investigating Victim A's claim of molestation by a priest.   

This story was nothing but a smear and a desperate attempt by Sara Ganim to become relevant again.

As such, the 1971 story about Paterno must also be retracted.

Send complaints to:

Tuesday, June 6

Boccabella is Part of the Corruption

Judge John Boccabella joined Laura Ditka, Patrick Schulte, and the rest PACORN to continue the false narratives of the case against PSU officials

Ray Blehar

For the last five and a half years, the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) has been publicly smeared by corrupt officials of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG), their local media lap dogs, the courts, Louis Freeh, and others for enabling the crimes of Jerry Sandusky.  

Readers of this blog have come to recognize this group of smear merchants as the Pennsylvania Corruption Network (PACORN).   The truth, laws, evidence, and the welfare citizenry -- including PA's helpless children -- are of little concern to this group, who only is out to protect themselves.

At Friday’s sentencing, Judge John Boccabella revealed his PACORN credentials when he began spouting many of the nonsensical false narratives of the case that have been used to scapegoat PSU for the failures of The Second Mile (TSM) and of Pennsylvania’s child protection to stop Sandusky from accessing children.  

“Why Mr. Sandusky was allowed to continue to the Penn State facilities is beyond me.”

The facilities as an enabler ruse first appeared in the November 5, 2011 press release by the PA OAG, became part of the Freeh Report, and continued through the trial of Spanier.  From the AG’s press release:

“Kelly said that rather than reporting the matter to law enforcement, Curley and Schultz agreed that Sandusky would be told he could not bring any Second Mile children into the football building. That message was also reportedly related to Dr. John Raykovitz at the Second Mile (Past Executive Director and Executive Vice-President and currently the President and CEO of the Second Mile).
"Despite this so-called 'ban,' which was reviewed and approved by University President Graham Spanier without any further inquiry on his part, there was no effective change in Sandusky's status with the school and no limits on his access to the campus," Kelly said. "Sandusky's 'emeritus' position, alleged negotiated as part of his 1999 retirement, provided him with an office in the Lasch Football Building; unlimited access to all football facilities, including the locker room; access to all recreational facilities; a parking pass; a university Internet account; listing in the faculty directory and numerous other privileges – he had remained a regular presence on campus."
Of course, what Linda Kelly failed to mention – and that OAG prosecutors apparently overlooked – was that the presentment failed to establish any evidence or allegations of crimes on campus after February 2001 .  

The so-called “ban” of Sandusky actually worked -- as far as stopping his crimes on campus.

At some point, OAG officials realized they had a big hole in their story of PSU officials causing immense suffering of victims by letting Sandusky roam the campus.    

Needing a crime on campus after February 2001, Fina and others, like Victim 5's attorney, Tom Kline, apparently collaborated to narrow the six year window (1996 -2002)  of possible dates of Victim 5’s down to August 2001.

But there’s more to the story.

On May 8, 2012, Frank Fina and Joseph McGettigan filed a motion to amend the first Bill of Particulars because that “authenticated findings” of the Sandusky investigation revealed the date of the McQueary incident to be February 9, 2001. 

The judge granted the motion and Fina went on to change not only the particulars of the Victim 2 incident, but also the details relating to Victim 5 (above), Victim 3 (putting his crimes into 2001) and Victim 9 (putting his crimes before 2009).  
Those changes added another victim after the February 2001 incident on the PSU campus and stopped the crimes against Victim 9 before Sandusky was “indicated” for child abuse.    The latter change took TSM,  PA Child Protective Services, former AG Corbett, and the PA state police off the hook for endangering the welfare of children.  
Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka’s sentencing memorandum, like the other documents, continued to pile-on with the facilities ruse.

Ditka's statement about parents is emblematic of the OAG's complete disregard of Sandusky's modus operandi.

None of the parents of Sandusky’s victims were sending them to PSU for a campus visit where Sandusky laid in wait to launch an attack. The parents and/or caretakers of the victims were releasing the children to Jerry Sandusky, who was representing TSM -- not PSU. 

Even though former AG Kelly's press November 2011 release, the testimony from the Sandusky trial, and McGettigan's post trial comments calling TSM a "victim factory," Ditka ignored all that when it came to unknown Victim 2 from the February 2001 incident.

Ditka bailed out TSM by suggesting that Victim 2 could have been from a PSU football camp (not held in February -- ever) or from some other community activity of Sandusky's.

When the time came time for Ditka to actually produce a victim/witness who would testify to being molested on campus after 2001, she had just one to offer  -- John Doe.

In yet another pushing of the ethical envelope, the OAG witness list included a "John Doe" witness who allegedly required extreme measures of security and protection.   It is more likely that the OAG wanted to keep "Doe's" identity a secret so the the defense would be unable prepare for the "mystery" witness.

The reality was that "John Doe" was Victim 5 and anyone who desired to know his name could look it up in the Sandusky trial transcripts.   

But why just one victim --  and why was it Victim 5?

Victims 1 and 9, who were victimized between 2004 and 2009, were not victimized on the PSU campus.  

Victim 3, despite Fina’s change to the dates of the crimes, testified that he was being victimized by Sandusky at the time he was an active coach and shortly afterwards (i.e., 1999 and 2000).  Victim 3 was not victimized after February 2001.

That left Victim 5, who apparently was willing to change his story to fit the OAG's narrative.

Victim 5 told the grand jury his encounter with Sandusky occurred in 1998 and that he did not understand the significance of Sandusky's erection when he observed it.  That was a credible scenario for a 10 year-old boy.  

At the Sandusky trial in June 2012, he testified the incident occurred in August 2001 when he was 13 years old.  It is possible, but highly unlikely, that a 13 year-old wouldn't know what an erection was.  Also, at the trial, Victim 5 added he was certain about the date because the incident happened before 9-11.

In his abbreviated testimony at the Spanier trial, he was sure it was 2002 because he recalled it happened after 9-11.  The erection issue simply doesn't hold water for a 14 year-old boy, especially in the age of the internet.

The date was/is a very material issue for this case and it appears his testimony was perjurious.

In addition, prosecutor Patrick Schulte would seemingly have suborned perjury based on his questioning of Victim 5.

Undoubtedly, Schulte (and Ditka) knew the Victim 5’s allegations of being sexually assaulted by Sandusky resulted in a not guilty verdict.  

The trial verdicts for Victim 5 (Counts 24-27) and 6 (Counts 28-31) from the Sandusky trial are shown below. 

Both Victim 5 and 6 testified it was the first time they were alone with Sandusky in the PSU shower room.   Victim 6 testified he and Sandusky worked out and that afterward there was playful activity in the shower— but no indecent touching occurred.  The jury correctly determined not guilty on Count 28: Indecent Assault.   

Conversely, Victim 5 testified that Sandusky took him to work out at the Lasch building and they worked out, and then took a sauna.  In the sauna, Sandusky indecently exposed himself.  Next, they went to the showers where Sandusky forcefully took his hand and forced him to touch his (Sandusky’s) penis. 

His testimony was unlike any of the other victims at the trial. 

Victim 4 testified Sandusky didn’t indecently touch him until they had showered together approximately 15 times.  Victim 4 also testified that nothing indecent ever happened in the sauna.   Victims 3 and 7 also showered with Sandusky and did not testify to any indecent touching/fondling or even attempted fondling in the shower facilities. 

Given what the jury heard from ALL the other victims who showered with Sandusky, the jury found Victim 5 to be NOT CREDIBLE of being indecently touched and it found Sandusky not guilty for Count 24: Indecent Assault.

In summary,  prosecutors ignored the Sandusky trial testimony and verdicts of victims and suborned perjury from Victim 5 to make their case of endangerment against Spanier.

The Sandusky trial was one of the most publicized sex abuse cases in American history.  While the public may not have been familiar with all of the details, it strains credulity that Judge Boccabella wasn’t familiar with the verdicts.   Especially since he was presiding over a trial concerning the Sandusky victims.

Boccabella let the charade about John Doe/Victim 5 play out dramatically in his courtroom and in his chambers.

At the sentencing, he also pushed the false narrative that Mike McQueary provided sufficient details that would have caused everyone to immediately realize Sandusky was a threat to children and that a call to the authorities was a no brainer.

Paterno “could have made that phone call without so much as getting his hands dirty. Why he didn’t is beyond me.”

Boccabella was “appalled that the common sense to make a phone call or make a report didn’t occur.”

First, McQueary testified on numerous occasions that he didn’t provide specific details to Joe Paterno.  For Boccabella to make an extrajudicial statement about Paterno is, in a word, disgraceful.

Even Curley and Schultz, who pleaded to EWOC, continued to hold to their original grand jury testimony that McQueary did not describe the incident as sexual or criminal. 

Four witnesses (i.e., Courtney, Curley, Schultz, and Dranov) testified that they were not told of anything explicit.   Mike McQueary testified that he believed he got the message across (or at least tried to) of a sexual incident.  Mike's father seemingly was the only person who could translate Mike's message into the proper context -- but it wasn't enough for him to call the police or child wefare -- or even advise his son to do so.

Judge Boccabella's statement that a call to the authorities was common sense was not  supported by the evidence in this case -- especially because a similar incident in 1998 involving two boys showering with Sandusky was fully investigated and found to be benign.

It’s hard to believe Curley “didn’t remember every detail of the most serious mistake you ever made.” 

In keeping with the practice of having a biased view of the case, Judge Boccabella referred to Tim Curley’s decision to inform The Second Mile (over child welfare agents) as “the most serious mistake you ever made.” 

The first instance of bias in that passage was that Curley should have a memory of details of a fleeting event from some sixteen years ago.   According to research on memory, details of traumatic or life changing events are remembered in detail.

But for Tim Curley, the 2001 incident was not a traumatic event for him or, as the evidence shows, NO ONE else involved.

Obviously, if the child in the shower had suffered the trauma alleged by Ditka, he would have certainly remembered being in the shower and seeing McQueary that night (as McQueary testified).   However, NO ONE has come forward with a version of being a child in the shower who was subject to being molested, heard the by-product “slapping sounds” of molestation, and then saw McQueary.

That kind of discrepancy would be hard for any reasonable person to get past, but we're not dealing with reasonable people in this case (i.e. Fina, McGettigan, Beemer, Ditka, Schulte, Schulte, Freeh, etc.).

Next, Curley could have hardly considered his decision to be the “biggest mistake of his life” at the time because his plan included telling the Executive Director of the charity -- who had far more knowledge and training on the issue at hand than he did. 

In other words, Curley believed TSM would take appropriate action.

And that brings us to the key evidence of Boccabella’s membership in PACORN.

Where's Jack?

According to numerous press reports, Boccabella admonished Paterno, Dranov, and Mike McQueary – along with the three PSU administrators –for not reporting Sandusky in 2001.

Dr. Jack Raykovitz wasn't criticized at all.

Given all the bluster blown about regarding the duty to protect children by every citizen and the laws being passed to increase penalties for the failure to report suspected child abuse, it is beyond the pale for Judge Boccabella to not mention Raykovitz’s lack of concern and inaction when told the founder and face of his charity showered alone with children on multiple occasions.

Of course, Ditka went even further to excuse the charity's inaction.

Curley testified (pages 392 and 393) that he informed Raykovitz not only about 2001 but of the 1998 incident as well.

Ditka’s sentencing memorandum claimed that Curley did not tell Raykovitz about 1998.  However -- unlike the allegations in her memorandum -- there is corroboration for Curley’s testimony of informing TSM. 

From Sandusky’s prison interview with John Ziegler in 2013:

John: But the Second Mile was informed in 2001 of ’98, as well?
Jerry: Right. I believe. Yeah, I’m sure, yeah, I’m sure. Yeah. 

John: So you’re sure that Tim told The Second Mile in 2001 about both the 2001
McQueary episode and the {Victim 6} episode?
Jerry: Right. And I talked to The Second Mile about ’98 and 2001 (in 2001).

Judge Boccabella conveniently sided with Ditka and believed that Curley’s testimony about telling Raykovitz about the 1998 incident was a lie (or a false memory) – even though Curley was supposed to remember every detail of the “biggest mistake he made in his life.”

The comments from Boccabella during the sentencing reveals that he is part of PACORN and has joined in to give TSM a complete pass.

The question that remains is what was going on at TSM that causes so many "public servants" to propagate falsehoods, twist the laws, monkey with evidence, and apparently suborn perjury to keep charity officials from seeing their day in court?