In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 934
Online now 857 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Blehar has his third report on his site up tonight. The major finding relates to victim #8. The "horrified janitor" story that was the main testimony of victim #8's incident in November 2000 was apparently a sham, for that particular victim anyways. The crazy janitor wasn't employed by PSU at that time.
the finding i'm talking about is under "improper investigative procedures led to false charges" in his report.
If the entire incident of victim 8 is made up..... I mean, wow.
I'll read this in about an hour but if that's what he is proving - then he's opening up a Pandora's box of epic proportions. (Before anyone even says it - that is regardless of whether or not this report gets public play. If he has proof of this, then Kane is going to have a field day).
Or there could be a valid explanation and this Blehar guy is going crazy. Who knows.
This post was edited by RWC5113 9 months ago
Follow me on Twitter @rayraycotto
Via twitter I said to Ray no one will believe this stuff until corbett, freeh, or BOTs go to jail. Will that happen? here's his response...
"@RayBlehar: @BrianHarner1 I am hopeful that evidence I've uncovered will implicate Freeh and the BOT. It's in the right hands. #Truth"
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by BKHPSU 9 months ago
Hopefully this version has actually been proof read by somebody over 8.
This is a good version. If you want some meaty stuff, read pgs. 70-75. This one was well executed.
Good to know. That first one was bad. Lost all credibility with the writing.
Think about this. You were a member of the 2nd Mile. You were an underprivileged youth and you probably aren't better off in adulthood. Basically if you can prove that you and Sandusky were alone together for a significant period of time you can bring a claim against PSU. PSU has no way of proving you weren't abused because they don't want to go to trail. Also, because you were a youth your name will remain secret. I'm not saying Sandusky is innocent because he's not but this whole process is ripe for fraud.
Dominate The State
If this is true, and Blehar has been holding this for a while to make sure of its validity, this would be huge
a lot of insightful facts in this report. Good read for anyone wanting information. Some things I didn't know, & I thought I knew a lot, that were highlighted in this report or made easier to understand.
1. How it is the 2nd Mile (ie, the agency giving Sandusky access to the children) that is important in investigating child abuse & yet 2nd Mile isn't investigated at all
2. Janitor that saw the rape wasn't employed by PSU during the time the rape is alleged.
3. Chronology of facts is helpful in knowing what was known at times
4. Sassano says that PSU actually testified that the 2001 incident was reported to CYS / DPW
5. Pictures of the shower make it impossible for McQuery to have seen what he says or the AG says he saw
6. Analysis on how Sandusky could have been charged much earlier due to lack of proper investigation
7. Lack of convictions for rape / sexual assault on the PSU campus despite the AG saying the lack of action by PSU made it easier to continue to abuse kids on campus
In the 1st chronology of facts, Ray says that in Feb 2011 ADA Arnold testified at the 33rd GJ, then several months later, he says that the 33rd GJ is sworn in. that seems to be an error that should be corrected.
Regarding victim 8, I always thought it was legal error to admit the hearsay testimony of the janitor. Now after reading this report, im convinced the Superior Court will overturn all convictions related to Victim 8. the janitor who testified showed a lack of reliability in the dates, the basis for him reporting the act couldn't have happened as he claims, the failure of the AG to call a witness to bolster this testimony despite promising it in the opening statement, the credibility of the witnessing janitor, & the allowance of the janitor opinion that PSU might fire him, all make me conclude that the verdicts regarding victim 8 will be thrown out on appeal. It made little sense to me for the AG to pursue the hearsay testimony & victim 8 other than to use it to prejudice Sandusky & PSU. They must have known they are liable to have the convictions overturned, so its a surprise they would pursue victim 8 charges. that said, I think its a stretch to say that the janitor made this story up just because he is wrong in the dates & other things. However, the convictions should be thrown out due to the lack of reliability of the hearsay statements.
yet, under the BS term of "harmless error", I say BS because it really isn't harmless error for a jury to hear about others seeing Sandusky rape a child & still not believe that Sandusky is probably guilty of the other charges since a janitor saw him raping a child, the Superior Court will likely affirm all other Sandusky's verdicts & the sentence wont be reversed.
All things considered, this was a very informational read & recommend it to others seeking to learn the truth. For those of you who want to "move on", you probably stopped reading my post a long time ago.
I understand what this means in regards to Freeh's work (which we all know was sloppy and speculative), but this really doesn't change anything in terms of the 2001 incident which is what PSU is in trouble for.
This post was edited by getmyjive11 9 months ago
Well, if it turns out the whole janitor thing was made up, or deeply embellished, it wouldn't make you look at the McQueary incident with a little more suspicion?
No. It would make me question the state and their motives, but with MM and Paterno saying something happened, it doesn't change much for me.
There are a lot of wrongs in this whole ordeal. We have to look at each event objectively to find the truth.
Well, I'm not sure we're ever getting the full story on the McQueary incident, so if this janitor thing is true, I think it at least helps lessen the credibility of a cover up.
Eh... I dunno. With everything that has been out there, I don't know what evidence people can point to showing that Paterno or the football program was involved in a coverup. But I have a hard time explaining the actions of Curley and Schultz. A very hard time.
Ultimately Sandusky was found not guilty in the case involving the McQueary incident. So at this point the validity of McQueary's testimony no longer matters.
It also clears the NCAA's claims of "The janitor was even scared to report it bc of the Football Culture" Therefore, the culture needed changed which lead to harsher sanctions.
I dunno. This whole thread creeps me out. Are there people actually working to prove Sandusky was innocent?
He was found not guilty on 1 of the 5 counts related to that incident, but convicted on the other 4. I see this statement a lot and just don't want the wrong info out there. Nothing against you personally, HolyLion.
This post was edited by dliz87 9 months ago
Edit: dliz beat me to it...
This post was edited by helpdesk 9 months ago
Not at all. But pointing out that certain elements of the case, upon which the sanctions were built, were not factual does not in any way interfere with Sandusky's general guilt here. If he was convicted of 40 things, and one of them didn't actually happen, pointing that out is not defending him, especially if that one thing caused great damage to a separate institution. He is a vile piece of garbage, and none of this is going to change that.
No, I get ya but we all knew that was BS anyways. The NCAA does what it wants.
Yes but you could see where people could twist it that way, if this is true, there goes a big part of their ammo. I mean Freeh made a big deal about the janitor being afraid to speak up.
On point 4. If this is true, it would explain Curley Schultz action and take them largely off the hook. It would also explain Schultz comment at the prelim where he stated that he thought the event was reported to cys. But is there evidence that this report was made?
On point 5. I think that I heard the showers in that bldg were renovated circa 2002, so blehars point may not be valid.
It certainly hurts the Freeh report, but I don't think it is that big. This has nothing to do with 2001. I understand the whole "culture problem" aspect but I just don't think it is that relavant. We care about it because it hits us in the gut. I just have no reason to believe that the NCAA would not have sanctioned us just as hard without the janitor incident.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports