Ray Blehar: Evidence in 2001 Twisted, Tainted, and Incomplete

[Tom McAndrew]

hows that Freeh review coming Lubrano or Barron? Can anyone address this? How long does it really take?

In reverse order:

Barron's review -- that never took place

The alumni-elected review -- I'm pretty certain that has been completed. They have to work through a process imposed by the Judge in the case, which is why the public has not heard any details from the review.

 

[coveydidnt]

I'm sure it's complete. They accepted a deal where they are muzzled in order to satisfy their curiosity. The understanding was that they would be able to ask the court to take off the muzzle if they found anything significant (as I understand it).

Doesn't sound like they have petitioned for any relief, or did I miss it? There's little question that they looked at those emails, police reports, etc. Probably the first thing they looked at.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

The understanding was that they would be able to ask the court to take off the muzzle if they found anything significant (as I understand it).

that's not quite correct

Doesn't sound like they have petitioned for any relief, or did I miss it?

n/a, per my prior response

 

[bjf1991]

hows that Freeh review coming Lubrano or Barron? Can anyone address this? How long does it really take?

Check back after the trials ......... When the "unveiling" will be made even less meaningful.

I don't think we have anyone who is willing to take ANY stand before the trials are done

Maybe that won't be the case - but I wouldn't hold my breath

Expectations - something not quite as groundbreaking as the Geraldo Rivera opening of Al Capone's Vault (for other old folks who remember that event )

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Check back after the trials ......... When the "unveiling" will be made even less meaningful.

I don't think we have anyone who is willing to take ANY stand before the trials are done

Maybe that won't be the case - but I wouldn't hold my breath

politely, you're clueless on this

 

[green2623]

If someone was called to testify, and was asked how they knew something; I believe the document in question would be admissible as evidence.

 

[coveydidnt]

that's not quite correct



n/a, per my prior response

I defer here then. Thanks.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Add to that the fact that Schrefflers signature is clearly bogus and certain identifiers are not consistent with the way he wrote them on other pages and it's clear someone else rewrote that page.

cc: @JmmyW https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/freeh-exposed-finas-other-email-problem.38850/#post-520419

 

[didier]

View embedded media

Thanks Chitown. The last signature clearly differs from the rest...essentially printed rather than cursive. Note also that the page here the appointment with Seasock is setup was not signed by Schreffler at all, only Weaver.

 

[bjf1991]

politely, you're clueless on this

Calling someone's opinion "clueless" ain't "polite"....... Even if you preface it as such...... bless your heart


In the meantime - for five years we hear about all the "I know but I can't tell you" crap ........which has amounted to ........ approximately........ give or take......... Squat!!

So - the "Freeh File Review" is gonna' be a game-changer? ........ All evidence to the contrary.


And how - pray tell - is one "clueless" based on an opinion that the net result of the "Freeh File Review" will be less than a "fart in the wind"?

 

[ChiTownLion]

See above post regarding signature. Also the location, which Schreffler consistently typed as "Lasch bldg/locker shower room" on every page he wrote up. On the last page the location is: "Lasch Building - University Park"....and the OAG tried to redact that although you can see through the marker. It seems they didn't want anyone to pick up on that inconsistency.

There's no question in my mind that that page has been messed with. The big question is who did it, when, and why.

1998 Police Report: http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf

 

[Nellie R]

It is certain that they were not edited. I will not get into how I know this.

However, I do. And because Ray insists there were tampered with, I know he's a lunatic.

Since he is willing to make wild & false claims about the emails, I question everything else he's produced.

You don't have to believe me. But be assured, Ray does NOT have credibility on this.

What are you doing in possession of the original source materials? Please turn it over to the OAG ASAP!

 

[coveydidnt]

What possible reason would there be to redact University Park? Or any of the "issues" with this page? What possible benefit would it serve?

 

[Nellie R]

It is certain that they were edited. I will not get into how I know this.

However, I do. And because Ray insists there were tampered with, I know he's sane and spot on.

Since he is willing to make credible claims about the emails, I have few doubts about everything else he's produced.

You don't have to believe me. But be assured, Ray has ENORMOUS credibility on this.

The only thing I question is the "and and", but that could be proven by seeing the original. I type and edit in the same sentence and come up with "and and" "to to" "the the" all the time.

 

[coveydidnt]

What are you doing in possession of the original source materials? Please turn it over to the OAG ASAP!

Everytime I post something, you find a way to comment. Don't you have anything else to do?

bye.

 

[Nellie R]

Everytime I post something, you find a way to comment. Don't you have anything else to do?

bye.

Every time? Let's see your data.

 

[coveydidnt]

The only thing I question is the "and and", but that could be proven by seeing the original. I type and edit in the same sentence and come up with "and and" "to to" "the the" all the time.

I will give you credit for having a reasonable look at this point.

 

[rmb297]

Spanier is a former family therapist. That's where his knowledge and concerns about legal requirements came from.

His expertise and research was about marriage. Nothing in his background suggests he was an expert on child abuse reporting -- with the exception of his first hand experience as an abused child. Abuse that went unreported.

 

[Nellie R]

I will give you credit for having a reasonable look at this point.

I am always reasonable and disagree with portions of what other people present quite frequently. I don't need any credit from you, I have credibility because I go out of my way to try and be unbiased. Always. Why does the majority know this and you don't?

I started reviewing this posting of Ray's 16 hours ago. He posted it 17 hours ago.

 

[Nellie R]

This is the part that blows my mind the most. The state did minimal work/digging in order to "prove" a report wasn't made to CCCYS in 2001. Sassano talked to a grand total of two people one of whom didn't even work there!!!

"Regardless, Courtney and Schultz both believed a report was made to “local child welfare” authorities in 2001. So far, there has been scant evidence presented to refute their recollection of a report. That evidence was testimony of Sassano that he spoke with one individual at DPW and one at CC CYS who didn't recall a report being made. Moreover, neither of these individuals were people who actually answered the phones."

IIRC Sassano asked them about 2002. Does anyone here have anything on his going back and asking anyone relevant about 2001?

 

[Nellie R]

You are right about ONE thing with respect to those emails. CSS fell all over themselves avoiding the use of certain words, almost like they were intentionally trying to be less than clear. They say "person, Coach, organization" for example instead of Jerry, Joe, DPW/TSM.

Put aside what I am telling you about the emails. Suppose someone *did* want to tamper with them to make a point. Why would they add phrases like "and maybe" and not add clear phrases like "Joe told us to cover this up" or "Tim thinks it would be best if we didn't report to DPW?"

The very indisputable fact that the emails are vague and hard to parse is in itself proof that they were not tampered with.

Many people in Corporate America do this in their emails. Daily. We all used to at my place of employment because every topic is not need to know by ppl who might see the emails in error. In this particular case, this subject was legally required to be as confidential as possible. Need to know. Thus, your "vague" language.

 

[coveydidnt]

Many people in Corporate America do this in their emails. Daily. We all used to at my place of employment because not every topic is need to know. In this particular case, this subject was legally required to be as confidential as possible. Need to know. Thus, your "vague" language.

I was not implying anything necessarily in particular as a reason for vagueness. Only that if someone was to tamper with them, it would be stupid to do so without going all the way.

What Ray is accusing here is like saying that someone was assassinated by adding a tiny bit of extra cholesterol to one meal. It makes no sense.

 

[Nellie R]

Thanks Chitown. The last signature clearly differs from the rest...essentially printed rather than cursive. Note also that the page here the appointment with Seasock is setup was not signed by Schreffler at all, only Weaver.

DITTO! Owe me a Coke from 2015! LOL j/k

 

[Nellie R]

I was not implying anything necessarily in particular as a reason for vagueness. Only that if someone was to tamper with them, it would be stupid to do so without going all the way.

What Ray is accusing here is like saying that someone was assassinated by adding a tiny bit of extra cholesterol to one meal. It makes no sense.

He's not "accusing". He's analyzing as a known expert in this type of work and uses qualifying words. Kind of like the qualifiers those people still stuck on GJ testimony keep skipping.

 

[rmb297]

Many people in Corporate America do this in their emails. Daily. We all used to at my place of employment because not every topic is need to know. In this particular case, this subject was legally required to be as confidential as possible. Need to know. Thus, your "vague" language.

We saw the same type of language from Ken Frazier's email when he referenced the issues/problems with the "incumbent." A few days later. Baldwin announced her retirement from PSU.

 

[coveydidnt]

DITTO! Owe me a Coke from 2015! LOL j/k

View embedded media

Nobody here ever had to sign for a mortgage & title transfer ? A zillion times?

And the notary calls you up and says, you forgot one?

And you're like ... WTF, do I own the house or not?

And so it gets worked out somehow & no one cares, no changes got made, no big deal.

I guess ... it can be a big deal if something ever comes up ... one could dispute that they signed that page .... but in this case the signer isn't disputing it, and there's nothing on the page that would have really been worth any effort to bother with.

 

[rmb297]

The only thing I question is the "and and", but that could be proven by seeing the original. I type and edit in the same sentence and come up with "and and" "to to" "the the" all the time.

That's "and and maybe"

The "and maybe" was the suspected addition.

 

[Nellie R]

That's "and and maybe"

The "and maybe" was the suspected addition.

LOL. If I had my magnifying glass handy I might see what you're seeing. But I don't because, well, you'll all find out in a month or so.

 

[didier]

What possible reason would there be to redact University Park? Or any of the "issues" with this page? What possible benefit would it serve?

Exactly. None of the other location markers were redacted...why only the last page.? It has nothing to do with the actual location...there's nothing sensitive about that. I can only surmise its because it so obviously varies from how Schreffler was labeling the other pages that someone was concerned it might raise suspicions the page is a swap out. And I don't think it was done by OAG...it likely happened much earlier.

 

[didier]

Nobody here ever had to sign for a mortgage & title transfer ? A zillion times?

And the notary calls you up and says, you forgot one?

And you're like ... WTF, do I own the house or not?

And so it gets worked out somehow & no one cares, no changes got made, no big deal.

I guess ... it can be a big deal if something ever comes up ... one could dispute that they signed that page .... but in this case the signer isn't disputing it, and there's nothing on the page that would have really been worth any effort to bother with.

Schreffler has always stated that "my report speaks for itself." That could suggest he's not owning the report NBC published. And he didn't sign it all at once. He did it by the individual day he was working on.

 

[DandyDonII]

While I generally think there was no ill intent by the three administrators, and I certainly do not believe there was a conspiracy,
Coveydidn't hit on one point that has always made me a bit weary...The fact that the administrators used language to get around using agency names or even Sandusky's name...That is a bit odd.
That being said, Harmon did the same thing in his email, I don't believe for a second that he wasn't told what was going on....

 

[WeR0206]

IIRC Sassano asked them about 2002. Does anyone here have anything on his going back and asking anyone relevant about 2001?

Yes, I believe Sassano was asked to address that issue during one of the prelims but I can't remember which one off hand. I think he said that he went back to the same two people he asked about 2002 and asked them about 2001 with the same result.

You may be able to find the testimony here in the 7/30/13 prelim (Sassano cross exam starts on page 25).

 

[coveydidnt]

Schreffler has always stated that "my report speaks for itself." That could suggest he's not owning the report NBC published. And he didn't sign it all at once. He did it by the individual day he was working on.

Great. But does it also seem odd that the pages and things that were "doctored" don't include any smoking guns nor any exonerating info to cover for anyone?

What's the point?

 

[indynittany]

You are right about ONE thing with respect to those emails. CSS fell all over themselves avoiding the use of certain words, almost like they were intentionally trying to be less than clear. They say "person, Coach, organization" for example instead of Jerry, Joe, DPW/TSM.

Put aside what I am telling you about the emails. Suppose someone *did* want to tamper with them to make a point. Why would they add phrases like "and maybe" and not add clear phrases like "Joe told us to cover this up" or "Tim thinks it would be best if we didn't report to DPW?"

The very indisputable fact that the emails are vague and hard to parse is in itself proof that they were not tampered with.

What's hard to parse?

Tim said: "...After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received...."

He was clearly having trouble going to EVERYONE, BUT the person involved. Not 'anyone, but the person involved'. Everyone! That means one thing and one thing only. He didn't feel comfortable involving the other entities without also informing Sandusky of their concerns.

There's nothing vague about it!

Spanier replied with: "...It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive...."

Clearly Graham understood. He acknowledged Tim's proposal would require an additional step....not one less step....and that the conversation with Jerry would be an uncomfortable one.

Joe's reputation was destroyed because he may or may not have advised Tim to tell Jerry what was going on. Are you effing kidding me?

Who needs to say this before the narrative is officially changed?

 

[Connorpozlee]

I don't follow Ray on this. Seems like a huge leap. Covey's point seems like a great one. Why, if you are going to doctor the emails, wouldn't you put something explicit in there? Anything is possible if you suspend all common sense, but this just doesn't meet my standard of common sense. Which means it will probably be proven to be true given my track record on these things.
Now didier does present something that is clearly doctored. Obviously not the same signature at the bottom of that page as the others. Why? I have no idea.
Looking forward to the trial to get answers.

 

[rmb297]

I don't follow Ray on this. Seems like a huge leap. Covey's point seems like a great one. Why, if you are going to doctor the emails, wouldn't you put something explicit in there? Anything is possible if you suspend all common sense, but this just doesn't meet my standard of common sense. Which means it will probably be proven to be true given my track record on these things.
Now didier does present something that is clearly doctored. Obviously not the same signature at the bottom of that page as the others. Why? I have no idea.
Looking forward to the trial to get answers.

That's a seemingly good point by Covey (though I have him on ignore), however the tampering has to be believable. Spanier had no recollection of the email, however, he stated that the language sounded like something he would write.

Conversely, if the tamperer wrote: Tim, I agree with your approach and it is a humane way to proceed, the only downside is that if Sandusky commits more crimes we'll all be in jail.

Spanier would know if he wrote something like that.

While I can't disclose what I know, I can say without reservation that the AG is not providing authentic evidence.

If the clown who did the tampering understood the issues with downloading files from Eudora into Outlook and editing them, then we'd have no clue that these emails were edited.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I'll take you at your word Ray. There is a lot of room between what you say is doctored and being as explicit as Covey says. At the same time, I will take Covey at his/her word. I can't figure this crap out.

 

[rmb297]

I don't follow Ray on this. Seems like a huge leap. Covey's point seems like a great one. Why, if you are going to doctor the emails, wouldn't you put something explicit in there? Anything is possible if you suspend all common sense, but this just doesn't meet my standard of common sense. Which means it will probably be proven to be true given my track record on these things.
Now didier does present something that is clearly doctored. Obviously not the same signature at the bottom of that page as the others. Why? I have no idea.
Looking forward to the trial to get answers.

BTW, Police chief Tom Harmon admitted to tampering with the 1998 police report -- though he didn't talk about the extent of the tampering. He only admitted to changing the label to Administrative Information, but he also changed the time of the incident (mistakenly) from 7-9 PM to 7-9 AM. He may have also removed an entire page, based on some information I was told about who was investigated and when.

 

[coveydidnt]

All, I can say is: The emails are not doctored.

You can either take my word, or the fact that the "doctoring" doesn't even really add any clarity nor specificity. It's not only not true, but pointless.

If a trial happens soon, I think Ray & I are hoping for the same result.

 

[coveydidnt]

BTW, Police chief Tom Harmon admitted to tampering with the 1998 police report -- though he didn't talk about the extent of the tampering. He only admitted to changing the label to Administrative Information, but he also changed the time of the incident (mistakenly) from 7-9 PM to 7-9 AM. He may have also removed an entire page, based on some information I was told about who was investigated and when.

This is far different that literally cutting and pasting times (for no reason - the "discrepancies" don't really matter ) or forging a signature (which IS a big deal**, but we all know happens all the time and is only REALLY a BIG DEAL if it's disavowed by the "signing party")

** I say not a big deal, just because it happens all the time. Go ahead next time you buy something with a credit card. Sign it "coveydidnt." -- You will see the charge be approved even though the signature doesn't match the back of your card. We will see who has to pay. Trust me. I'm not paying. But go ahead and try.