Monday, October 16

McQueary's Friday Night Doesn't Add Up & More

Evidence and common sense says that neither of the two versions of events that Mike McQueary gave for his activities on Friday, February 9, 2001 add up.

Ray Blehar

October 16, 2017: 11:40 PM EDT

On February 9, 2001, Mike McQueary was a 27 year-old graduate assistant for the Penn State University (PSU) football team who stumbled upon Jerry Sandusky and a child showering together on a Friday evening, called his father, and then reported the incident to Joe Paterno the next morning.

Those are just about the only details that have been consistent about that incident.

McQueary gave two versions regarding what he was doing at the Lasch Building that night and neither of them make sense -- even when the incorrect date is changed to the correct date. 

The Date

As memories are faulty, Mike did not recall the exact date or even the year of the incident.  In his handwritten statement to police, he wrote it was either 2001 or 2002, but was pretty sure it was 2002.

Under cross-examination on July 29, 2013 (when the correct date was well known), Mike was asked (page 38) if he was thought the incident was the Friday before Spring break because of it being a quiet time on campus.
McQueary:  Reasons to be
 be on campus don't add up.

He responded: "Yes.  That's how I remembered it. Yes."

That answer is somewhat correct.  More specifically, it was a very quiet time in the football facilities where Mike worked because Wednesday, February 7th was National Letter of Intent Day and the PSU staff routinely took time off after the hectic recruiting period ended.

This is a critical fact when evaluating Mike's versions of events -- and so are the football activities, or lack thereof, prior to Spring Break.  The football staff takes a break just like the rest of the University does.  Spring practice commenced upon the players returning from break and the 2001 Blue-White game was held on April 21st.

There was nothing in his job as a football graduate assistant that required him to be present on the campus.

Version #1:  No Rudy, No Dranov

On November 10, 2010, Pennsylvania State Trooper Scott Rossman and Office of Attorney General (OAG) Agent Anthony Sassano contacted Mike to arrange for an interview about the incident he witnessed in the PSU showers.  Mike called his father to get advice and was told not to speak with investigators until got advice from an attorney.   As such, he met with the investigators near State College High School on  that evening and advised them he would talk with them later after being advised by his attorney.

On November 22, 2010, McQueary met with the investigators in the office of his attorney, Timothy Fleming.   To be clear, Mike had nearly two weeks to consult with his father and anyone else about the incident to reconstruct the chain of events that occurred that evening.  He discussed the incident with the investigators.  At the conclusion of the interview left a report form for McQueary to fill out.  McQueary filled out the form the following morning as follows:

On the Friday before spring break in either the year 2001 or 2002, 2002 I think, at approx 10 pm in the Lasch Football Building on the Penn State campus I witnessed improper behavior by Jerry Sandusky in regards to a male juvenile. As I walked in to the staff locker room I heard rythmic [sic] slapping sounds. The locker room lights were on & I did hear the showers running [a second "running" is crossed out]. Upon my entry I turned immediately to my right to open my locker. While placing items in my locker I looked into the mirror at a 45 [degree] angle; in the reflection I could see a young boy approx. 10/11 yrs old facing a wall with Jerry Sandusky directly behind him. I did not see actual insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic]. I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker. I proceeded out of the locker room. While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction. After leaving the locker room I proceeded to my office, made a phone call to my father and then immediately left the building.

I drove to my parents house. Spoke with my father about the incident and received advise [sic]. On the next Saturday morning at roughly 8 am -- less than 12 hrs after the incident -- I alerted Coach Paterno -- my superior at PSU -- at his house in person as to what I saw!

To be clear: From the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was maybe 1 minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered.

I would not be able to recognize the boy. Both individuals were wet and the looks were quick -- I had not seen the boy before nor have I seen him after to my knowledge.

Again, this was statement written after being interviewed by police and consulting with an attorney.

McQueary's original version of events does not mention Dr. Jonathon Dranov being summoned by his father to provide advice about handling the incident.  This is rather hard to fathom, given that Mike seemingly consulted his father routinely during this saga.

Mike also  recalled just two looks into the shower; one (through a mirror) while putting his shoes away and the other as he was leaving.  He did not state that Sandusky and the boy were separated when he left the locker room.

These details would change one year later in the face of public backlash against him.

It has been established that there were no urgent football activities requiring attention at the time, so what was Mike doing on campus? 

He wasn't there working on academics because there would be no urgency to get academic work completed when everyone at the University is on vacation.  Moreover, he was a graduate assistant for three years and did not complete his graduate degree.

At this point, without any physical evidence such as a receipt, I am hesitant to believe he went to the locker room to put shoes away.

It is also highly unlikely that he went to the locker room because he got motivated by watching the movie, Rudy.

 Version #2:  Rudy and Dranov

A very different scenario took place in Version #2.  Mike wasn't working late -- he was slacking (?) off.

At the jury trial (page 191), he testified, "I had gone to bed early, actually laying in bed, watching the movie know, I went to bed around 8:30 or nine o'clock...let's get up and let's do something and get motivated."

At the December 2011 preliminary hearing (page 7), Mike testified that he was not working late on campus, but rather was home in bed watching a football movie, and "upon watching the movie, I became motivated and just wanted to get some football things done."

Rudy began at 8:05 PM and ran for 160 minutes.  The movie is rather slow from a football perspective with nothing exciting happening in the first 3/4 of the movie or for two hours.   As such, this motivational moment wouldn't have come until nearly 10:00 PM.

Interestingly enough, that  comports with his original version of when he went to the locker room and thus the following timeline would reflect the night's events.

10:00:00 PM -  Motivated by Rudy movie and scurried out of his house.
10:09:00 PM -  Entered Lasch Staff Locker Room
10:09:15 PM  - Observed Sandusky and boy showering.
10:10:00 PM - Left locker room and walked to upstairs office.
10:12:00 PM - Called father and discussed incident.
10:17:00 PM - Left PSU facilities to drove to father's home.
10:25:00 PM - Mike arrived at father's home.
10:27:00 PM - Mike went to father's bedroom, cried, and tried to explain what happened.
10:35:00 PM - John Sr. called Dr. Dranov (at Dranov's office)
11:05:00 PM - Dr. Dranov arrived at McQueary residence.
11:25:00 PM - Dr. Dranov departed after twenty minutes -- according to Mike
11:35:00 PM - Mike and John Sr. made decision to call coach Paterno.

Problems With Version #2 

First, Dr. Dranov testified at the Sandusky trial that he was called by John Sr. around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, which would be impossible under this scenario.  Even backing the timeline up by a half an hour to 45 minutes to accommodate Mike arriving at the locker room at 9:15 or 9:30 makes this impossible.

Next, at the civil trial, Dr. Dranov testified he was at McQueary's home between 9:00 and 9:15 PM which would have been impossible under either scenario.

At the Sandusky trial, Mike testified that his father called Dr. Dranov after they discussed the incident:

"He said he wanted to digest it for a minute.  He decided to call a friend and a confidante...and that's what he did."

Mike testified in December 2011, that Dranov arrived approximately one half hour after he arrived at the residence or at 10:55 PM (on the timeline).

The timeline doesn't add up and neither does Mike's new rationale for going to the campus.

Mike testified (page 8 of December 2011 preliminary) that he went to the locker room "to look at recruiting tapes, pick up some recruit tapes."  

As noted earlier, recruiting had just ended.  

At his civil trial (page 43), Mike went into considerable detail in described his duties as a graduate assistant and that he had only tangential involvement with recruiting at the direction of the recruiting coordinator and/or specific coaches.  He made no mention of watching recruiting tapes or evaluating recruits.

Specifically, Mike testified that if there was a "big recruiting weekend coming up and we had more recruits that we could handle,  you would be assigned a recruit and his family to host."

As such, what was the real purpose of Mike's trip to the Lasch building that night?   

Someone knows that answer to that question -- but this story has even bigger problems.

Bigger Problems

It took investigators approximately two months after interviewing Mike to get around to interviewing his father.

According to the Moulton Report, John Sr. was first interviewed by Sassano and Rossman on January 24, 2011 -- and that simply does not comport with any competent investigation.

In the two months after interviewing Mike, Sassano and Rossman became engaged in obtaining subpoenas for Internet Service Providers and attempting to track down individuals who were posting on blogs.  None of those leads panned out.

This alleged failure to interview John Sr. in November or December 2010 also means that the OAG and the grand jury judge relied on an uncorroborated report to subpoena PSU for documents and emails related to the 2002 (sic) shower incident and for Paterno, Schultz, and Curley to appear before a grand jury.

That's very difficult to believe.

The Moulton Report shows that Dr. Dranov wasn't interviewed until January 27, 2011.

According to that timeline, one can surmise that it was not until John McQueary Sr. talked to the police and the OAG that he "remembered" Dr. Dranov's presence that Friday night.

I'm not buying that either.

Something about that night was/is being covered up.

Maybe Mike was in no condition to talk to the authorities on Friday night because he was doing what most college students do on Friday nights (before he went to the locker room). And if it that was the case, then such a situation would have thrown everything he allegedly witnessed into question.

As was theorized here, the Friday, February 9th meeting with Dranov, John Sr. and Mike may not have occurred on February 9th.  Perhaps it occurred after Mike sobered up -- very early on Saturday morning and directly before Mike met with Joe Paterno.

So what's a few hours difference to the PA OAG if they can preserve the credibility of their key witness?

Considering that evidence shows it concocted the Rudy story as a means to correct the date it falsified (by over a year) in order to charge Curley and Schultz with Failure to Report Child Abuse -- pushing the aftermath of an incident a few hours would be small potatoes to them.

The evidence also shows that prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach was more interested in "saving her case" than in telling the truth.

Eshbach: More interested in "saving her case" that in telling the truth.

In closing, we cannot be sure what transpired on the night Mike witnessed the incident in the locker room, but we can be sure that what we have been told about that night isn't the truth.

Monday, October 9

Potential Bombshell: Feb 9th meeting was fabricated?

Based on an email in the McQueary v. Penn State civil proceedings it certainly appears that Mike McQueary did not meet with his father on February 9th, 2001 -- and the Attorney General's office knew it.

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

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

Ray Blehar

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

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


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

Wednesday, September 27

The Imaginary World of Louis Freeh

Louis Freeh's statements after the dismissal of Spanier's defamation lawsuit are unsupported by the facts established by independent reviews conducted by Pennsylvania government officials and by the court rulings pertaining to the cases of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz

Ray Blehar

September 27, 2017, 9:31 EDT

On September 20, 2017, legal representatives of former Penn State University (PSU) President Graham Spanier and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stipulated that Spanier’s defamation lawsuit against Freeh would be dismissed while Spanier case was on appeal.

Immediately after the ruling, Freeh issued a statement with an addendum that made a number of factually challenged assertions regarding his investigation and report on the Sandusky scandal at PSU.'s difficult to decide where to start in order to debunk Freeh’s nonsense. 

Given the number of falsehoods, half-truths, opinions, and innuendo in these documents, it's difficult to decide where to start in order to debunk Freeh’s nonsense.  As such, the following analysis focuses on Freeh’s statements that are demonstrably false and those that stand in the way of improvements for the safety and welfare of children.

FALSE:  Freeh Investigation Was Limited to PSU

In the addendum to the September 20, 2017 statement, Freeh falsely claimed that the scope of his investigation was limited to PSU and therefore he did not address failures at The Second Mile (TSM) or the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Public Welfare (DPW). 

 “the scope of his review was not to review issues at either institution or recommend changes for these institutions.”

The fact of the matter is that the engagement letter for the Freeh investigation required the former FBI director to:

 “perform an independent, full, and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegations of sexual abuse at the facilities and the alleged failure of The Pennsylvania State University personnel to report sexual abuse…”

In other words, this letter required a full and complete investigate of the crimes that occurred on campus from 1996 through 2002 – as reported in the Sandusky grand jury presentment.

Freeh’s investigation failed to do so.

A full and independent investigation would have determined how and why Sandusky was able to commit crimes against children on campus prior to 1998.  As such the investigation ultimately would have involved understanding the roles and responsibilities of DPW and TSM as they pertained to protecting foster children and adoptive children, and the charity’s participants, respectively.

As the evidence shows, not only did they not investigate the crimes on campus from 1996 to 1998, but they also failed to conduct independent reviews of facts and evidence related to the crimes from 1998 up to Sandusky’s arrest in 2011.

FALSE: Not a “Single Fact that the Report Got Wrong”

In a desperate attempt to defend The Freeh Report, the former FBI director attacked his critics, stating:

“Critics have raised a number of issues with the report, none of which identified a single fact that the report got wrong.”

Freeh cited just one example of his critics being wrong, but even that example was dubious at best. 

Critics complained that Freeh did not have adequate evidence to draw the conclusion that a reference to “coach” in an email was Paterno. This issue remained in doubt until Spanier’s trial in 2017 when Tim Curley testified that the email's reference to “coach” indeed was Paterno.  

However, there were many, many more criticisms of the quality and accuracy of The Freeh Report than just the debate over whether or not “coach” was Paterno.  

Among many other things, The Freeh Report did not properly reflect the proceedings at the Sandusky trial.

The best example of this is The Freeh Report’s version of the 2000 incident involving the janitors that contained a dozen errors in a little over one page.  

First, the report incorrectly stated (at 62) the location of the crime was the East Area Locker Room.  Later, in detailing the incident (at 65), it incorrectly stated that the location was the Assistant Coaches Locker Room in the Lasch Building.  So not only were both locations wrong but they weren't even consistent.

As established by the trial testimony, the incident occurred in the Staff Locker Room of the Lasch Building. 

Next, The Freeh Report (at 65) stated that multiple witnesses testified about the 2000 incident at the Sandusky trial.  The fact is that only one witness (i.e., janitor) testified about the incident.   The report goes on to provide ten statements purported to be the trial testimony of the witnesses, none of which was part of the testimony of the single witness, Ronald "Buck" Petrosky (see below).

Freeh's version of the janitor incident was riddled with errors.

In addition to the error filled version of the janitor incident, The Freeh Report’s timeline (at 19) also incorrectly reported that Victim 6 was assaulted in the Lasch Building shower in May 1998.  Of course, this is incorrect for several reasons including the Lasch Building didn’t exist in 1998 and that Sandusky was found not guilty of indecently assaulting the victim.

The report’s timeline (at 25) reports Victim 5 was assaulted even though the jury acquitted Sandusky of indecent assault.

If this $8.5 million investigation couldn’t correctly report the trial proceedings, which are a matter of public record, one has to wonder how many other imaginary things Freeh concocted from investigative information that was not in the public domain.  Note that in the BP case, an attorney gave a sworn statement that Freeh's team constructed a completely inaccurate version of what she told them and used it to recommend charges against someone who had done nothing wrong.  Freeh was sued for defamation in that case.

Even a cursory review of this report should have raised questions about its accuracy and quality.   The report’s appendix begins at Exhibit 2 and ends with Exhibit 10.  In between, Exhibits 4, 7, 8, and 9 are absent.  Why were these Exhibits absent and why didn’t the Freeh team properly renumber the Exhibits?

Moreover, the report went public with an accompanying errata sheet identifying errors in the report.  In this day of electronic publishing, why not simply make the changes to the report?

The evidence strongly supports the theory The Freeh Report was completed prior to the Sandusky trial then hastily reviewed and edited afterwards to meet a deadline established by the PSUBOT’s Special Investigations Task Force.  Some errors were purposely left in the report to deceive the readers about the facts (knowing that few people would read the errata sheet).

Those who have read and evaluated The Freeh Report know it is incomplete, inaccurate, and of poor quality.

Anyone who stands by the completeness, quality, and accuracy of the report, including Louis Freeh, undoubtedly has not bothered to actually read it.

FALSE:  “Provided ‘smoking gun’ evidence to prosecutors”

Freeh’s contention that his investigation provided the smoking gun evidence (see below) to prosecutors is simply false.   Moreover, Freeh’s contention may be an admission to a conspiracy to obstruct justice by the OAG and the Freeh Group.

Freeh relied on the media’s lazy reporting and, subsequently, the public’s lack of knowledge of the July 2013 preliminary hearing of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to continue perpetuating this falsehood.

First, no one from Freeh’s investigative team ever testified to their role in the recovery of the email evidence and/or the Schultz file.  

Next, neither the PSU nor the OAG information technology professional who testified at that proceeding mentioned that Freeh’s team had any role whatsoever in discovering and/or providing the critical email evidence.  

OAG IT professional Braden Cook, who joined the investigation in fall 2011, testified that he received the emails from OAG’s computer services and provided no details on their chain of custody beyond that.   Cook’s testimony did not establish the exact date of original receipt of the email evidence by law enforcement.

PSU’s IT professional, John Corro, testified that he recovered the emails and provided 3 thumb drives containing them to former PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin in March or April of 2011.

At Spanier’s grand jury colloquy, Baldwin promised to turn them over to the OAG and grand jury judge by Friday, April 15, 2011 – at least six months before Freeh was hired.

The May 30, 2014 Report to the Attorney General on the Investigation of Gerald A. Sandusky (aka, the Moulton Report) revealed (at 158) that Pennsylvania State Police trooper Scott Rossman received a “thumb drive containing Penn State emails” on July 7, 2011 – again, before Freeh’s team was hired.

The evidence clearly established that the email evidence was obtained well before the Freeh group was hired to conduct the investigation.

Freeh also claimed to have a role in the discovery of Schultz’s notes.  That’s at least partially true, as former PSU administrative assistant Kimberly Belcher testified that she refused to provide Schultz’s notes or any other evidence to Freeh’s investigators.

The July 2013 preliminary hearing testimony confirmed that Belcher provided the notes under force of subpoena to OAG officials in April 2012.

The Freeh Report affixes a May 2012 date to Schultz’s notes – confirming that they were in the possession of the OAG before they were obtained by his team. 

Court records, as well as an official investigation into the Sandusky investigation, confirmed that the Freeh investigation did not uncover any of the critical (“smoking gun”) evidence used in the prosecution of PSU officials.

Freeh’s continued assertion that his team discovered or assisted in the recovery of this evidence is not only false, but could be considered an admission  that he entered into  a conspiracy with OAG (and PSU) officials to frame Curley,  Schultz, and Spanier for obstructing the Sandusky investigation.

FALSE: “Report’s Findings Repeatedly Sustained”

The facts in the previous passage confirm that the Freeh investigation did not uncover the emails and notes used in the prosecution of the PSU 3 and that his claims have been refuted by the court records.  

Regardless, Freeh continued to promote the veracity of his investigative report on PSU:

"There have been numerous opportunities for various courts and agencies to review the report since 2012.  At each opportunity, the report’s findings have been confirmed.”
According to The Freeh Report’s key findings Curley and Schultz, along with Spanier and Joe Paterno, actively concealed information about Jerry Sandusky's serial sexual abuse of children and had a total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims.   

The Freeh Report's language was mimicked by the OAG on November 1, 2012 when it issued its press release in conjunction with the Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment. 

“This is not a mistake, an oversight or a misjudgment. This was a conspiracy of silence by top officials at Penn State, working to actively conceal the truth, with total disregard to the suffering of children…” 


“They essentially turned a blind eye to the serial predatory acts of Jerry Sandusky committed on campus...”

The number of charges in the case against PSU officials ballooned from 4 to 24.
Previously, Curley and Schultz were charged with 1 count each of perjury and failure to report child abuse.  

The new charges against the three PSU officials – now including Spanier -- were 2 counts each for endangering the welfare of a child, 2 counts each conspiracy to endanger, and 1 count each for obstruction of justice and related conspiracy in addition to the prior charges.   Spanier was also charged with perjury and failure to report.  

By the time of Spanier’s trial in March 2017, all but three of the charges against him were dismissed.   The charges related to obstruction of justice and conspiracy that emanated from the Freeh investigation was dismissed.

Curley and Schultz pleaded to one count each of endangering the welfare of a child. All other charges were dismissed.

As such, Freeh's claim that the findings of his report were not challenged or disproved in the courts is not connected to reality. 

FALSE:  PSU Was Accountable for Sandusky’s Crimes

Freeh’s statements, as well as many in the media and public, ludicrously contend that it is blame shifting and “misguided” when individuals bring up the roles and responsibilities of the PA Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and The Second Mile (TSM) for protecting children from Sandusky.

Freeh’s addendum contended:

“More critically, the concept that others may also have had some responsibility for Sandusky’s acts in no way absolves Penn State from its own accountability.”

The Freeh Report’s Chapter 8 cited excerpts of the 2001 and 2012 versions of the PA child abuse reporting law but did not provide any conclusion whatsoever regarding whether or not Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and/or Spanier violated the law.

The reason for this was because Freeh, as a former judge and prosecutor, obviously knew that none of the officials at PSU who received the report of the 2001 incident had a legal requirement or mandate to make a report of it.

As such, he skirted the issue in The Freeh Report by omitting his “reasonable conclusion.”  

In the more recent addendum, Freeh also skirted the legal issue using the non-legal term of “accountability” rather than using terms such as “legally responsible” or “criminally negligent.”

The failure to report charge against PSU officials was eventually dismissed by the court in 2016.

FALSE:  Blaming DPW Is Misguided

In what could be considered the most delusional, irresponsible, and dangerous statement made by the former FBI director, he offers that those who have pointed out that the child protection system (i.e., DPW and Centre County CYS) failed in the Sandusky case are “misguided.”

“This effort to redirect attention away from Penn State’s role in Sandusky’s offenses is misguided.”

Amazingly, this statement by Freeh came less than one week after PA Auditor General Eugene DePasquale issued a scathing report that concluded the Commonwealth’s child protection system is broken and puts children at risk.  

Moreover, DePasquale’s State of the Child report (at 6) confirms a key point repeatedly made by those who Freeh criticizes as “misguided:”  

The Freeh Report and media reports echoing the OAG's allegations that a reporting failure at PSU enabled Sandusky's crimes surely influenced the changes made by the PA general assembly.  Those changes focused almost exclusively on expanding the definitions of child abuse, increasing the span of mandated reporters, and providing harsh penalties for not reporting.  

The results of the changes to the laws – all meant to improve child safety -- were disastrous, as reported by DePasquale’s report on ChildLine in October 2016 and his September 2017 report on The State of the Child.

The general assembly’s decision to change the law without providing additional staffing and/or resources to handle the increased call volume resulted in 42,000 missed calls in 2015.  The report revealed that 42% of calls were either unanswered or dropped. 

DePasquale offered that the numbers were disturbing because it remains unknown how many children in need of services and protection fell through the cracks.

As I wrote here and here, The Freeh Report missed a golden opportunity to inform and educate the public about the failures of PA’s child protection system that contributed to Sandusky's crimes and instead swept them under the rug.  

DePasquale’s 2017 State of the Child Report has finally brought to light the problems that the “misguided” have been discussing for years, especially that children remain unsafe after the call has been made to ChildLine and after that child is receiving protective services from county agencies.  From the State of the Child report (at 2):

The State of the Child report confirmed that DPW is broken.
Some of the uninformed citizenry may attempt to make the argument that the system has only recently become dysfunctional, however DePasquale’s report confirmed that DPW officials cited a need to revamp the training program for caseworkers in 2001.

In short, caseworkers were not equipped for field work from the training they were receiving at the time they were called into investigate Sandusky in 1998.  The evidence related to that investigation confirms that was the case, as nearly one dozen signs of potential sexual abuse were seemingly discounted by caseworkers and Sandusky was determined NOT to be a danger to children.

FALSE:  Dissenters Disservice Victims and Penn State

Last but not least, Freeh asserts that those who have taken issues with the conclusions in his report are doing a disservice to the victims and are at odds with those who want to improve the institution.

“…a small group denies the facts that have been proven over and over and seeks to fight yesterday’s battles.  This is a disservice to the many victims of Sandusky’s crimes, as well as the thousands of decent Penn State students, athletes, faculty, administrators, trustees, alumni, and supporters who wish to improve their institution...”

The truth of the situation is that the “small group” understands that The Freeh Report dishonored the Sandusky victims by promoting a false narrative that resulted in more victims and a more dire situation for PA's children.

There is no doubt among well-informed individuals that a call and/or report to ChildLine regarding the 2001 shower incident would not have resulted in an investigation. 

The fact of the matter was that because the victim in the 2001 incident was unknown, the intake workers could not have even started to investigate.  From the State of the Child report (at 12):

Moreover, the intake workers would have never even gotten a chance to investigate the report because it would have been screened out before it reached them.  From the State of the Child report (page 12).

DePasquale’s State of the Child Report finally made public what that "small group that denies the facts" has known since 2013.

The Sandusky scandal was never a Penn State problem.  It was a state of Pennsylvania problem.

The system could not have stopped Sandusky because of the way it operated and the recommendations from the Freeh Report and the public statements of Louis Freeh did little to nothing to prevent the future victimization of children.

The Freeh Report helped keep PA's children in harm's way


There is an imaginary world of a child protection system in which every call is answered and a well-trained caseworker is promptly dispatched to properly investigate every incident.  

Then there is the real world where 42% of calls are missed, almost half of the calls received are screened out, and there not enough caseworkers to properly investigate the cases.

Unfortunately, the imaginary world is the one in which most of the media and the public lives and who still contend that a single phone call in 2001 to ChildLine would have stopped Jerry Sandusky.  

It is painfully obvious that Louis Freeh still lives in that imaginary world.