 |
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||||
What do you call the express lane of The Road to Hell?
So drastically does it reduce commute time that Craig James often back home in Malice, Texas, before cock crows twice.
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
As much as we despise the murderous Castro brothers regime that’s plunged Cuba into darkness for over a half-century, we couldn’t help but empathize with oft-hyperbolic Ozzie Guillen after his regrettable comments about Fidel Castro in this week’s TIME.
(’Laughing’ Angelos: Cubans escaping mass murderer “would’ve marred trip”)
You see, Guillen was merely toeing the MLB party line on Castro, which has long been set by his ultimate boss, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig.
It was Selig, along with current Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, who relentlessly lobbied an unsympathetic United States Government in the ’90s to allow them to stage a game between the Cuban national team and the Orioles in Havana.
The game, shamefully, eventually became reality on March 28, 1999, and was actually televised by ESPN at the time.
(Did Everyone Get a Gold-Plated Glock Under Their Seat?)
In the history of Fidel and Raúl Castro’s reign of terror, there’s a case to be made that nothing has done more to legitimize their python-like grip over the island nation than co-opting America’s National Pastime that day.
In the aftermath of Guillen’s five-game suspension by the Marlins for his comments about Castro, today Selig issued the following statement on behalf of Major League Baseball:
Major League Baseball supports today’s decision by the Marlins to suspend Ozzie Guillen. As I have often said, Baseball is a social institution with important social responsibilities. All of our 30 Clubs play significant roles within their local communities, and I expect those who represent Major League Baseball to act with the kind of respect and sensitivity that the game’s many cultures deserve. Mr. Guillen’s remarks, which were offensive to an important part of the Miami community and others throughout the world, have no place in our game.
Coincidence we’re sure that apparently Selig forgot to leave out exactly why Guillen’s comments were so offensive as to merit a significant suspension of a sitting major league manager.
(”Socially Responsible” Selig: Cuban Despot “Humble” and “Fascinating”)
Or why the same “social institution with important social responsibilities,” while on his watch, actively embraced being a featured centerpiece of what turned out to be a masterstroke of Castro propaganda - masqueraded as a 1999 baseball game backed by the full faith and credit of Selig’s Major League Baseball.
And while now-profusely apologetic Guillen is shamed to the ends of the earth, Fidel Castro’s Selig-enabled finest hour continues to serve its purpose over two decades later - thanks to the well-circulated photo of Selig, Angelos and the mass murderer, seated together in the front row of perhaps the first capacity crowd in history to watch a major sporting event by invitation only. (We say “perhaps” on the off chance Hitler sold GA seats for the ‘36 Olympics.)
(Why Didn’t Selig Mention Evil Dictator In MLB’s Guillen Release?)
The current public excoriation of Guillen is particularly ironic considering the media, baseball establishment and public took a complete pass on Guillen after he made almost identical comments about Castro to Rick Telander of the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES four years ago.
Not to mention the same media, baseball establishment and public lodging nary a protest as Selig and Castro joined blood-stained hands in ‘99 … with one major exception.
48 hours before the Orioles game in Cuba in 1999, Mike Phillips of the MIAMI HERALD reported comments from Florida Marlins Owner John Henry at the time that could not be construed as anything other than withering criticism.
Highlights of the invective aimed by Henry at his baseball colleagues from the March 26, 1999 Herald article:
The loudest voice against the Baltimore Orioles’ exhibition in Cuba on Sunday may not be coming from a protester with a bullhorn but from the owner of the Florida Marlins, who is almost insulted baseball has allowed the game to happen.`
`The major problem here is ignorance,” says John W. Henry, who bought the Marlins two months ago. “People are not aware of the depth of oppression in Cuba. If they were, no one would support this game.”
Major League Baseball called Henry this week and asked if he would like to attend the game. Henry said he almost couldn’t believe it.
“I declined,” Henry said. “I’m opposed to the game, and the Marlins organization is opposed to this game.”
Henry was somewhat upset that baseball didn’t call him before it approved the game, but even more upset that baseball didn’t ask the players.
“It’s disappointing that baseball didn’t consider asking the Cuban-American players how they feel about the game,” Henry said.
The Marlins have several players and coaches who were either born in Cuba or whose parents were born in Cuba. To a man, they are vehemently against the game.
“Obviously, the Florida Marlins should be the team playing a game in Cuba, if the game in Cuba were the right thing to do. But it’s not the right thing to do,” Henry said.
Henry said someone should have contacted the Marlins.
“What is the percentage of our community that is Cuban-American? Virtually every Cuban-American is a baseball fan,” Henry said, making his point that no one considered the South Florida Cuban community when the decision was being made.
Henry has been out of the country the past week, but he returned Thursday. Last week, Henry met with protesters who showed up at Fort Lauderdale Stadium for a Marlins-Orioles exhibition.
“I wanted them to know I support them, that we support them,” he said.
Henry was also critical Thursday of Orioles chief operating officer Joe Foss, who downplayed the protests at (Orioles Spring Home) Fort Lauderdale Stadium by saying there were only 250 protesters in a crowd of 4,000.
“If [Foss] were to go to Miami-Dade County and ask the man on the street how he felt, I think he would see it’s a much larger percentage than he is aware of,” Henry said.
In his aforementioned comments to the Chicago Sun-Times four years ago, Guillen said, “He’s a bull—- dictator and everybody’s against him, and he still survives, has power.’’
Sound familiar, baseball fans?
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
Earlier today Oklahoma-based website TheLostOgle.com reported on a recent Tweet by Skip Bayless in which the ESPN personality cited his own high school basketball career while making a point about star NBA guard Russell Westbrook.
In a Tweet dated March 31, 2012, Bayless reported to his hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter.com, “I started for high school team that lost in the state finals. Coach didn’t like me b/c I shot too much and he wanted me to be more of a PG (point guard).”
In response to the ESPN on-air talent’s claim about his high school basketball career, TheLostOgle.com unearthed images the website reported came from the yearbook of the high school Bayless attended in 1969 and 1970 - the ESPN personality’s junior and senior years at Oklahoma City’s Northwest High School.
Those images established that Bayless had attended the school those years and that he indeed was a member of the Northwest High School basketball team that lost in the Oklahoma high school state basketball finals on March 14, 1970, to Norman High School 47-42.
After the TheLostOgle.com’s post about Bayless today, SbB obtained an image scan of the original account of the Northwest-Norman game printed in the DAILY OKLAHOMAN on March 15, 1970.
Included in that account, written by Daily Oklahoman reporter Lynn Garnand, was a box score. ESPN on-air talent Bayless, who 10 days ago claimed to hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers that he “started” for Northwest that season was not mentioned in Garnand’s game story while the stat line of Bayless in the Daily Oklahoman’s box score can be seen as zeroes across the board.
That isn’t to say Bayless didn’t register a single statistic for Northwest that season.
He did, with the operative word being “single.”
In its post earlier today TheLostOgle.com also noted statistics printed in the 1970 Northwest yearbook that showed that as a senior Bayless averaged 1.4 points-per-game for the school’s varsity basketball team that season.
As for the junior basketball season of Bayless at Northwest, the same Oklahoma-based website reported that the 1969 Northwest high yearbook indicated the ESPN personality was an on-court contributor to the school’s junior varsity squad but did not appear in the final statistical summary of the Northwest varsity team that season.
Sure enough, in a March 14, 1969, Daily Oklahoman box score obtained by SbB today, Bayless contributed the same to Northwest’s 64-60 first round loss to (Tulsa) Hale high school in that year’s Oklahoma state basketball tournament as he did for Northwest in the postseason his senior season.
Zero.
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
In 1998 Penn State police discovered that current Nittany Lions football coach Jerry Sandusky had been showering with unrelated prepubescent boys in the school football team locker room.
(Who was the Penn State coach “present” while Sandusky, child showered?)
On May 19, 1998, Sandusky admitted to bear-hugging an 11-year-old boy while both were naked in the Penn State football team locker room shower. The Nittany Lions football coach also, at the time, did not deny touching the prepubescent boy’s “private parts” when confronted by the mother of the child - as police detective Ronald Schreffler eavesdropped on the conversation as part of a Penn State investigation.
Part of that Penn State police investigation involved Centre County (PA) Child and Youth Services, which assigned psychologist John Seasock to interview the 11-year-old boy on May 8, 1998, to get the child’s account of showering with the current Nittany Lions football coach in the Penn State football team locker room.
In his report to Penn State police on behalf of Centre County Child and Youth Services, the latter of which had previously licensed Sandusky as a foster parent, Seasock described what the 11-year-old boy, whose name was redacted from Seasock’s report, told him about showering with Sandusky on the Penn State campus:
<redacted> reported that he felt weird and that he just wanted to get showered and get out, he felt funny but again never said anything to Jerry about how he felt. <redacted> reported that he had just finished washing himself when Jerry came from behind, made a large growl and gave him what he termed as a large “bare hug” which he laughed at and thought was funny. <redacted> reported that Jerry basically gave him a hug around the guts and said he was going to squeeze his guts out, picked him up a bit and then put him down.
Seasock eventually concluded that Sandusky’s behavior with the prepubescent child in the Penn State football team locker room showers was “normal” - along with Sandusky’s admitted habit of showering with other children on the Penn State campus:
If one pays special attention to Jerry’s reported behavior, it will be found that Jerry engaged in behavior that can be considered indicative of most people termed as “(male) coach”. It appears that Mr. Sandusky engaged in a routine of behavior that has been repeated countless times over his history as a coach. All the interactions reported by <redacted> can be typically defined as normal between a healthy adult and a young adolescent male.
Seasock, who said in his report that he was “not familiar with Penn State football” before learning of the Sandusky case, also noted that “another coach” had been “present” while Sandusky showered and “bare hugged” the naked, prepubescent child in the Penn State football team locker room:
7. Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility.
In closing Penn State’s 1998 police investigation of Sandusky’s practice of showering with children in the Penn State football team locker room, Penn State Detective Ronald Schreffler also noted in the official Penn State police report the following from psychologist Seasock’s evaluation:
SEASOCK said that he hasn’t heard of a 52-year-old becoming a pedophile
Sandusky has since been charged with 52 criminal counts relating to child sexual abuse of 10 alleged victims. Eight of the victims cited by the Pennsylvania Attorney General in its ongoing investigation of the longtime Penn State football coach were raped at locations inside and around Penn State football facilities.
Below is the text from Seasock’s 1998 report cited by Penn State in not continuing to pursue child sexual abuse charges against Sandusky at the time.
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
Renaissance Psychological Corporation
Service Evaluation
Name: <redacted>
DOB: <redacted>
Dates of Evaluation: 5/8/98
Referral Source
This referral was made by John Miller who is currently a case worker for Centre County Children and Youth Services. No other information was provided to the interviewer prior to the initial meeting with <redacted>.
Reason for Referral
<redacted> was referred to Renaissance Psychological Corporation for evaluation of possible sexual victimization.
History
Identifying Data
<redacted> is an eleven year old Caucasian male of average height and weight who appeared to be his stated age. He was evaluated at the Centre County Children and Youth Services Office, located in Bellefonte, PA. He was brought to the interview site by his biological mother <redacted>. <redacted> was informed that he would be talking to a counselor who just had some questions to ask him.
Medical Status/History
<redacted>
Psychiatric History/Psychological History
<redacted>
Educational History
<redacted>
Legal History
<redacted>
History of Drug and Alcohol Use/Abuse
<redacted>
Cognitive Status
<redacted>
Results of Interview
Physical and Emotional Abuse
<redacted>
Sexual History
<redacted>
Inappropriate Sexual Behavior
<redacted>
Sexual Victimization
The original purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether or not an incident of sexual victimization had occurred in <redacted>’s life. Upon the opening of the interview, this evaluator had asked <redacted> why he thought he was speaking to me today. <redacted>’s straight answer was, because of “Jerry”. This evaluator basically stated, “I don’t understand what you mean.” <redacted> went on to explain the following to this evaluator. <redacted> reported that Jerry is an older friend, an adult, who works with a program called Second Mile. <redacted> described Second Mile as a program for people with parents who have parents who are divorced or not married. He reports that he met his friend Jerry through Second Mile and then was invited to a game of football. He explained that this football game was a game of two-hand touch with some Penn State University players. He reported that approximately a week later he was invited to the locker room at Penn State University by Jerry, who evidently has some connections with the college. <redacted> reported that he was extremely thrilled at this offer. He reported that he and Jerry went to work out on machines that included things like treadmills and other various equipment pieces, then he and Jerry made up a games called Polish Locker and Polish Bowling [a ball made from sticky tape used by football players used to tape hands and joints was formed into a ball and was then kicked into a garbage can or used to knock over drinking cups]. <redacted> reported that after playing this game he wrestled with Jerry. <redacted>’s description of wrestling appeared to be more along the lines of horseplay that occurred for brief seconds during the transition from the workout area to the locker room. The horseplay incident basically consisted of <redacted> attacking Jerry while sitting on what was described as as mat which turned into some tickling. Upon assessment of the tickling there was nothing that appeared to be inappropriate to this evaluator. The tickling occurred for several seconds, as defined by <redacted>. This evaluator questioned <redacted> as to why he thought we were here to talk about Jerry, because what he had just told me appeared to be fine. <redacted> reported, “my mom was concerned that Jerry did something to me.” This evaluator questioned, “Did something?” <redacted> reported that Jerry at one point said that he was going to take a shower and that he asked if <redacted> needed a shower. <redacted> said yes. <redacted> did not relate any evidence of being forced into taking a shower and portrayed it as nothing more than an offer. <redacted> reported that he was nervous about the situation because he had never showered with an adult before but he did not state his feelings at any time to Jerry. <redacted> reported that he did take a shower at the Penn State facility with Jerry. <redacted> reported that he was sweaty and did actually feel he needed to take a shower. Again <redacted> did emphasize that at no time did he feel forced to take a shower. He related that Jerry gave him a towel and that he did feel uncomfortable taking his clothes off in front of another person. He related that Jerry appeared to have his own area which appeared to be a coach’s room where he disrobed and then went into the shower separately from <redacted>. He related that Jerry went in and showered first. <redacted> reported that the water was already running because the shower’s were turned on when they first entered the locker room so the water could warm up. <redacted> reported that he went into the shower and initially went to turn on another shower unit a distance from Jerry because he was uncomfortable. <redacted> reported that Jerry said that he already had a shower on and that he should use one that was already running, the shower was closer to Jerry and he did use that shower. <redacted> reported that he felt weird and that he just wanted to get showered and get out, he felt funny but again never said anything to Jerry about how he felt. <redacted> reported that he had just finished washing himself when Jerry came from behind, made a large growl and gave him what he termed as a large “bare hug” which he laughed at and thought was funny. <redacted> reported that Jerry basically gave him a hug around the guts and said he was going to squeeze his guts out, picked him up a bit and then put him down. He reported that the whole incident happened in a matter of several seconds and that no contact between bodies had occurred. At one point <redacted> reported that he still had shampoo on his head and that Jerry had lifted him up from behind and had stuck his face in the shower head to wash him off, this lasted several seconds and then he was placed back down on the shower floor. This was done half to get the soap out and half as what appeared to be a gag. <redacted> again portrayed this as fun. <redacted> reported as they exited the shower, Jerry turned the showers off, went back to his coaching area to get dried off and changed and that <redacted> had gone into a separate area to do the same. <redacted> related that after they got dressed, they left the locker room, got into Jerry’s car, and Jerry took him home. Jerry said that in the future he might call again, and <redacted> was dropped off at his residence.
<redacted> reported that many people have come to talk to him about this event and many people asked him if Jerry had touched him. <redacted> reported that nothing like this had never occurred. This interviewer questioned for any type of manipulation that could have possibly been done with <redacted>, and <redacted> related that there were never any secrets discussed, no threats that were ever made, no time when <redacted> felt that something sexual was going to happen to him, and that overall he had a good time. <redacted> reported that at present he still wants to see Jerry but because what happened in the shower was wrong, he couldn’t see Jerry. <redacted> related that as long as Jerry didn’t touch him or “try anything” he though things were fine. <redacted> felt it necessary to give the full name of Jerry which is Jerry Sandusky, and it was related that he is a Penn State Defensive coach. <redacted> asked if this interviewer knew him and I related to <redacted> that I am not familiar with Penn State football. <redacted> also reported that he has a friend named <redacted> who had a similar experience with Jerry. <redacted> related that he talked to <redacted> and told him that his mother was worried that they had been sexually abused. <redacted> related what he did with Jerry to <redacted> and <redacted> said that he did basically the same thing. This interviewer asked again if <redacted> felt that he had experienced what would be termed as sexual abuse, and <redacted> reported no. <redacted> was then asked to explain what sexual abuse meant and he was actually able to explain the appropriate definition as good touch, bad touch or when another person touches a child on their “penis”. It should be noted that this interviewer know that previous investigation had been done for the possibility of sexual abuse. The attempt of this interview was to possibly establish a pattern of what would typically seen in an adult sexual offender who would manipulate children into sexualized situations. Through this “cold interview with <redacted> there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children. This evaluator does work consistently with sexual offenders and does attempt to establish, through interview, the actual patterning of a sexual offender known as a motive for operation. Again from the interview with <redacted> there was no evidence of a sexual offense that occurred nor any consistent evidence of offense patterning.
Consultation/Extended Interview
Upon completion of an independent interview with <redacted> this evaluator had the opportunity to gain access to the prior interviews that had been done with <redacted> through the local police department and Children and Youth Services. It is evident that <redacted> gave explicitly consistent interviews with the local police department, Children and Youth Services and this interviewer. This fact does lend credence to the validity of what <redacted> had reported. There were only very slight differences between the interviews.
Through the statements that were consistently by <redacted> it does not appear that a sexual victimization occurred directly between <redacted> and Jerry Sandusky. However, there is still concern about whether or not <redacted> had been placed in a situation where he was being “groomed for future sexual victimization”. To either rule in or rule out this concern, one should specifically look at the testimony supplied by <redacted>. If one places such information under specific scrutiny it can be determined that <redacted> had not been groomed for future sexual behavior, nor did a situation of inappropriate sexual behavior occur. If one pays special attention to Jerry’s reported behavior, it will be found that Jerry engaged in behavior that can be considered indicative of most people termed as “(male) coach”. It appears that Mr. Sandusky engaged in a routine of behavior that has been repeated countless times over his history as a coach. All the interactions reported by <redacted> can be typically defined as normal between a healthy adult and a young adolescent male. The only cause of contention that would cause any doubt in the situation would be the fact that Jerry and <redacted> had taken a shower together. This immediately caused appropriate concern about whether or not a sexual victimization occurred which then puts all of the other activities into a framework which could have been used to groom a child for sexual behavior.
1. Through <redacted>’s reports there was no evidence of threat, intentional manipulation, or force designed to elicit sexual behavior.
2. <redacted> never disclosed any discomfort with the situation giving Jerry no opportunity to alter his behavior.
3. The reported wrestling was more indicative of horseplay, consistent with the developmental behavior of a young adolescent.
4. <redacted> specifically reported that he had never been touched sexually.
5. Mr. Sandusky changed in a separate area from <redacted> which is not consistent with how adult sexual offenders utilize children for sexual arousal. What usually happens in these events is that the adult watches the child disrobe and uses that to elicit sexual arousal within themselves. It was explicitly related in all three interviews that Mr. Sandusky did not evident sexual arousal in any way through various situations. Additionally what was missing was that at the initial onset of the day Mr. Sandusky did not view <redacted> changing into a different set of workout clothes, which as previously stated, would have been used for sexual arousal.
6. Mr. Sandusky had the opportunity to help <redacted> dry off which is also a patterning used for adult sexual offenders. If Mr. Sandusky was going to use the situation for his own sexual gratification would be expected to have engaged in such activity.
7. Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility. An adult sexual offender, at all costs, attempt to do such activities within private areas.
8. The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sandusky is directly consistent with what can be seen as an expected daily routine of being a football coach. This evaluator spoke to various coaches from high school and college football teams and asked about their locker room behavior. Through verbal reports from these coaches it is not uncommon for them to shower with players. This appears to be a widespread acceptable situation, and it appears that Mr. Sandusky followed through with patterning that he has probably done without thought for many years. I believe the mistake that was made was that Mr. Sandusky did not take into account the pre-adolescent age of this boy and the level of sexual development that he was at.
9. The amount of physical contact that occurred between Mr. Sandusky and <redacted> is not consistent with what is commonly found in adult sexual offenders. There is usually ongoing touches that do not necessarily have to be reciprocated. Prolonged touches are what are usually used to elicit some sort of sexual arousal sequence.
10. It was not reported that Mr. Sandusky had purposely stared at <redacted> while in the shower according to <redacted>. Again, if Mr. Sandusky was using this child for sexual arousal, direct visual stimulation is what some adult sexual offenders utilize, again this is not consistent.
There are several other inconsistencies that follow throughout the report but at the present time, this evaluator does not feel that it is necessary to go into line by line statements.
Discussion
Taking into account the large amount of data that has been gathered about this situation involving <redacted> it does not appear that a sexual offense nor does it appear that this young gentlemen is been placed in a situation where he is being groomed for future sexual behavior. What does appear evident to this evaluator is that we have a person who has been termed as a local football coach who was been <report cut off>
NBC News reported today that a State College-based Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology who interviewed an alleged victim of child sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky in 1998 warned Penn State police at the time that Sandusky was a “likely pedophile.”
(See Ph.D.’s Full Report on Sandusky as “Likely Pedophile” Below)
Dr. Alycia Chambers reported the following of Sandusky to Penn State police during its investigation of the then-current Nittany Lions football coach after Sandusky was accused of inappropriate behavior with two young boys in the Penn State locker room shower in 1998:
“My consultants agree that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a ‘loving,’ ‘special’ relationship.
“One colleague, who has contact with the Second Mile, confirms that Mr. Sandusky is reasonably intelligent and thus, could hardly have failed to understand the way his behavior would be interpreted, if known. His position at the Second Mile and his interest in abused boys would suggest that he was likely to have had knowledge with regard to child abuse and might even recognize this behavior as a typical pedophile ‘overture.’”
NBC News also reported today that the Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology ..
.. gave her report to Penn State police Officer Ronald Schreffler on May 7, 1998, along with a cover letter that highlighted “the gravity of the incidents.” Chambers had also reported the incident to the Pennsylvania “suspected child abuse” hotline, where officials wrote up their own report identifying Sandusky as the “AP” or “Alleged Perpetrator.” Jerry Lauro, an investigator who specialized in abuse cases, was assigned to work the case with Schreffler.
Penn State detective Schreffler was interviewed by PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE reporter Paula Reed Ward about the case in December 2011. In Ward’s story Shreffler claimed that the “the state (Department of Public Welfare)” was the reason he closed the Penn State Police case on Sandusky in 1998:
.. Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn’t indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution’s case even more difficult.
“It’d be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn’t any abuse.”
But the Pennsylvania child welfare investigator assigned to the Sandusky case at the time, Jerry Lauro, told NBC News this week that Schreffler nor anyone at Penn State ever made him aware of the damning report by Dr. Chambers that profiled Sandusky as a “likely pedophile.”
(PSU Cop didn’t give “the state” PhD’s report on Sandusky)
When told of the contents of Dr. Chambers’ report on Sandusky in 1998 Lauro told NBC News:
“Wow! This is the first I’ve heard of this. I had no idea . If I would have seen the report, I would certainly have done some things differently. Boy, this is a shock.”
In an interview with NBC News the mother of the alleged Sandusky victim in 1998, identified as “Victim 6″ in the Nov. 4, 2011, grand jury presentment that initially charged Sandusky with 40 counts of child sexual abuse against eight alleged victims, detailed her son’s reaction to Sandusky’s behavior:
From what we now know, Sandusky appears to have been far from alone in that regard.
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
On May 13, 1998, and May 19, 1998, Penn State University police detective Ronald Schreffler eavesdropped on conversations Jerry Sandusky had with the mother of a boy later identified as “Victim 6″ in a 2011 grand jury presentment alleging 40 criminal counts of child sexual abuse against eight victims by the former Penn State football coach. (The alleged victim count has since increased to 10, with 52 criminal charges.)
(PSU detective Schreffler statements contradict child welfare investigator)
The Nov. 4, 2011, grand jury presentment described Schreffler’s surveillance of Sandusky and the alleged victim’s mother in 1998:
Detective Schreffler testified .. The mother of Victim 6 confronted Sandusky about showering with her son, the effect it had on her son, whether Sandusky had sexual feelings when he hugged her naked son in the shower and where Victim 6’s buttocks were when Sandusky hugged him.
Sandusky said he had showered with other boys and Victim 6’s mother tried to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he would not.
She asked him if his “private parts” touched Victim 6 when he bearhugged him. Sandusky replied, “I don’t think so…maybe.”
At the conclusion of the second conversation, after Sandusky was told he could not see Victim 6 anymore, Sandusky said, “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.”
In a PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE report published on Dec. 18, 2011, Penn State detective Schreffler said of his investigation of Sandusky, “At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors.”
Of his surveillance of Sandusky, Schreffler also told the Post-Gazette:
“I’ll never forget this. He (Sandusky) said ‘I would ask for your forgiveness, but I know you won’t give it to me. I wish I were dead. I understand I was wrong’
“Hearing him make that comment, I just felt there was more there. He was upbeat when he came in, and she started hammering him. I often wonder what he would have done if I’d stepped out from around the corner.”
” … I felt my hunch was right. There was something there.”
In the same December 2011 newspaper story, Post-Gazette reporter Paula Reed Ward wrote:
Mr. Schreffler and Jerry Lauro, a child abuse investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, interviewed Mr. Sandusky on June 1, 1998. During that interview at the Lasch football building on Penn State’s campus, Mr. Schreffler said the man admitted to showering with boys.
“He said that he showered with other boys in the past, that he used poor judgment,” he said.
.. Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn’t indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution’s case even more difficult.
“It’d be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn’t any abuse.”
The Pennsylvania “state Department of Public Welfare” investigator in the case in 1998 was Gerald Lauro.
Thursday the HARRISBURG PATRIOT-NEWS reported the following 2011 quote from Lauro in regards to why he dropped his inquiry of Sandusky in 1998:
“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room. He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.’”
Yesterday the Patriot-News also reported that two “hidden” reports from psychologists who interviewed the Sandusky accuser in 1998 were allegedly never made available to Lauro by Schreffler. From P-N reporter Sara Ganim:
Penn State “Detective [Ron] Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” Lauro said, referring to reports from psychologist John Seasock and a female psychologist.
Seasock concluded that the boy was not sexually abused two days before the case was closed. The report of the female psychologist who evaluated the boy right after the incident found Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming a victim for sexual abuse.
“The conclusions she had drawn in her report were pretty damaging,” Lauro said. “I would have made a different decision. … It’s unbelievable, and it gets my blood pressure going when I think about it.”
Schreffler, when reached by phone, declined comment. “My report speaks for itself,” he said before hanging up.
Clearly all of the statements made by Schreffler and Lauro cannot be true but whether those irreconcible differences indicate some manner of coverup remains to be seen.
At the very least, it’s impossible to think that the current Sandusky investigation teams will ignore such dramatically contradictory accounts of a 1998 Penn State-led investigation which in the end allowed Sandusky to allegedly sexual abuse children for more than an additional decade.
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has officially announced it is investigating former Georgia head football coach Jim Donnan for “alleged violations of federal securities fraud.”
In a recent court filing in objection to Donnan’s personal bankruptcy court plan to reorganize his family estate, attorney David W. Baddley filed the following statement on behalf of the United States of America:
… the SEC staff anticipates that the SEC will file a substantial claim in this case based on potential remedies for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
Last year Donnan filed for bankruptcy to protect his personal assets after he was accused by an Ohio company of perpetrating a wide-ranging Ponzi scheme that allegedly bankrupted the company while costing several high profile college coaches and former players millions of dollars in the process.
Donnan’s alleged scam was to lure investors to “loan” money to the Ohio company - GLC Limited - at annual interest rates of up to 70%. GLC has since claimed in its own federal court filings that the ensuing pressure to honor such loans initiated by alleged GLC representative Donnan bankrupted the company.
Think of GLC as Donnan’s own (alleged) piggy bank, with that bank bearing outrageous interest rates - set by Donnan - for his family and friends.
The alleged Ponzi may have also involved Dennis Franchione, Tommy Tuberville and former ESPN announcer and college football coach Mike Gottfried, as Donnan noted in a Jan. 19, 2012, bankruptcy court filing that Franchione, Tuberville and Gottfried “invested and brought in friends whom Jim did not know and had never met.”
(Donnan Handwritten Notes: Franchione “Commission” on Gillispie “Loan”)
One of those “friends” was Billy Gillispie, who “invested” millions in Donnan’s business venture allegedly via Franchione. After failing to recoup $1.9 million in “loans” attributed to Franchione’s alleged solicitations, Gillispie filed a claim for the same amount against Donnan’s family estate in the college football Hall of Famer’s current bankruptcy proceeding.
Donnan’s own handwritten notes, which can be seen in federal bankruptcy court documents, also indicate that Franchione received a substantial “commission” from Donnan - allegedly on behalf of GLC Limited - for luring Gillispie into business deals that may have never actually existed. GLC Limited, the Ohio company Gillispie allegedly “loaned” money to at annual interest rates up to 70%, is also now suing Franchione for $95,000 in “commissions” Franchione allegedly made from the transactions with the Texas Tech basketball coach.
This week in federal bankruptcy court Donnan agreed to give the United States Securities and Exchange Commission more time to investigate his alleged Ponzi scheme. Donnan’s concession followed an ominous filing by an attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2012, that included the following:
The (Donnan) Disclosure Statement provides that in 2007 – prior to becoming involved with GLC – the Debtors had a net worth in excess of $3 million. (Disclosure Statement at p. 3). It appears that the Debtors’ investments in GLC resulted in net profits of at least $7,352,838 (See footnote 3).
These net returns would have increased the Debtors’ net worth to more than $10 million. The Plan, however, offers less than $5 million in assets for distribution to unsecured creditors, and there is very little information in the Disclosure Statement about what the Debtors did with the substantial profits they received from GLC, and why more money is not available to pay creditor claims.
Failure to Address Possible SEC Claim. The current deadline by which the SEC must file a proof of claim in this case is March 27, 2012 (Docket No. 186).
Although the SEC’s investigation is still ongoing, the SEC staff anticipates that the SEC will file a substantial claim in this case based on
potential remedies for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The amount sought for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains may likely exceed $13 million, and the claim may also include amounts for civil penalties and prejudgment interest. The Disclosure Statement fails to acknowledge the upcoming bar date or any potential for an SEC claim, including how such a claim would be classified and treated under the Plan.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Donnan agreed Thursday to a 60-day extension - which awaits court approval - beyond the aforementioned March 27, 2012 deadline for the Feds to “file a substantial claim” against Donnan.
In other words, the U.S.A.’s investigation and prosecution of Donnan’s alleged Ponzi may just be beginning.
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
Today SbB salutes a true pioneer in television history.
We’re talking, of course, about C-Span founder and Book TV host Brian Lamb, who retired this week.
He will be missed.
Enjoy the video.
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
Any chance of Fred Wilpon maintaining ownership of the Mets likely ended this week thanks to a U.S district court judge named Jed Rakoff.
(Opening Day: Mets Fans No Longer Pay To Watch “Pon Stars”)
On the eve of a federal court proceeding to determine if the Mets owe up to $383 million to the victims of the $50 billion Bernie Madoff Ponzi, and with Wilpon and the Mets already facing long odds in their attempt to “restructure” hundreds of millions in debt directly attributed to their intimate and unorthodox financial arrangement with Madoff, Wednesday Rakoff issued the following requirements of the MLB team’s counsel in its bid to stave off additional creditors:
A central issue in the forthcoming trial is whether the transfers that Madoff Securities made to the defendants during the two years preceding Madoff Securities’ filing for bankruptcy –up to an amount equal to their investment with Madoff Securities during the same period -were received by the defendants in good faith, i.e., without their having willfully blinded themselves to Madoff’s scheme.
At the in-court conference on March 9, 2012, the parties raised the question of whether, on the facts of this case, this issue should be viewed as an issue under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a) (1) (A), in which case the burden of proving willful blindness would be on the plaintiff, or as an issue under 11 U.S.C. § 548(c), in which case the burden of proving the absence of willful blindness would be on the defendants.
Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court adheres to its prior determination that this is an issue under § 548(c), and that therefore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendants received the aforementioned transfers in good faith (i.e.,in the absence of willful blindness) rests on the defendants.
Ingested without an Everest-like level of evidence against Wilpon and the Mets in relation to the nature of their “faith” in the legitimacy of their Madoff investments, Rakoff’s order may seem somewhat innocuous.
But as such evidence exists, including the documentation of a phony $54 million “investment” by Ruth Madoff (on Mets letterheard!) and the son of Mets co-Owner Saul Katz stating under oath that the team initially tried to keep their “investments” with Madoff a secret, even if Wilpon & Co. win a satisfactory judgement the necessary court defense required to provide such an outcome completely defeats their subsequent reasoning for being allowed to keep the team.
Thus far the defense proffered by Wilpon - who is unquestionably the front man of the Mets - is that the unflinching, decades-long level of trust he placed with Madoff in “investing” billions in assets was solely based on the Ponzi schemer being his “family friend.”
(Mets Letterhead: Phony “Investment” Helped Save SNY Deal For Team)
But in the same breath Wilpon has also stated as part of that defense that he wasn’t that close to Madoff.
Excerpt from Wilpon discussing his relationship to Madoff during a sworn July 10, 2010, deposition in New York:
I had a personal relationship with the Madoffs that developed over time, and not an everyday personal relationship, but a friendship.
And so I made it a policy that when I saw him at a charitable event or celebration of some kind, you know, we attended his kids’ weddings, he attended our kids’, you know, we were family friends, I just didn’t discuss business with him.
So my conversations with Bernie Madoff were really of a, just of a personal nature.
Of what was happening in their lives and what was happening in our lives.
Not in a context of, you know, what’s happening in the business, how are you investing these funds?
Because, frankly, I wouldn’t — that’s not my expertise. I wouldn’t really know, and I didn’t want to mix the two.
So, once a year we’d go and have a conversation, mostly schmoozing. You know what schmoozing is.
That’s the kind of relationship it was. Very trusting relationship.
There’s no person that you will talk to, none, that is more betrayed than I am.
So Wilpon didn’t have an “everyday personal relationship” with the man the Mets tied up most of their money with while also vigorously transacting that cash to purposefully extract as much of Madoff’s phony “interest” as possible.
Yet Wilpon also claims he nor anyone with the Mets ever investigated Madoff’s “investment” firm to see if transacting billions with Madoff was a safe, prudent investment for the Mets - because they trusted him so much!
If Wilpon was unsophisticated enough to think the Mets should not investigate the man - with whom he himself was not close to - in sole possession of the vast majority of the team’s money over the years, how does Wilpon possibly possess the level of sophistication and credibility required to continue to run a Major League Baseball franchise in the country’s #1 market?
The answer probably no longer matters.
Today Howard Megdal of CapitalNewYork.com reported of the current financial quagmire facing Wilpon’s Mets:
A $40 million bridge loan from Bank of America, taken out late last November, is due back this month. The minority stakes would also go toward paying a past-due loan of $25 million due back to Major League Baseball, and a portion–likely at least $100 million–of the $430 million debt against the team due back in June 2014.
But while Wilpon assured reporters, yet again, that those other sales were imminent, we are now more than halfway through March without any news on that front.
Then there’s this excerpt from a recent post by Mike Ozanian of Forbes.com that also ponders the immediate solvency of Wilpon’s Mets:
The Mets are praying that their season ticket sales will look good enough by the end of April that they can restructure $430 million of debt due in two years. If not, two sports bankers familiar with the team’s finances I have spoken with believe it is likely the Mets will follow the Dodgers into Chapter 11.
As of this morning you could still buy seats for the Mets home opener against the Braves on April 5 for yourself and 11 of your closest friends - together - in at least three Citi Field sections spanning low-mid-high prices.
SbB can also confirm that the full-size image of what is likely the last money shot of baseball’s “Pon Stars” is safe for work.
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
When it was initially filed in federal court last year, the racial/ethnic orgin discrimination lawsuit brought by ex-Indianapolis Colts cheerleader Malori Wampler against the NFL franchise seemed dubious.
(’Midwest Moral Standards’ Apply To Indonesian Wampler, Not Caucasian Kaley?)
Then Colts Cheerleading Coordinator Theresa Pottratz participated in a sworn deposition last month.
While under oath, Pottraz volunteered on Feb. 16, 2012, that “there is a certain moral standard we (Colts) have.”
In response to Pottraz’s statement, Wampler’s attorney then asked the Colts Cheerleading Coordinator to, “describe your moral standard.”
In response, Pottraz said, “Our cheerleaders we go for the girl next door image because that’s what our Midwest fans like.”
Eight months after the Colts fired Wampler for not living up to the “moral standards” of the “girl next door image” that their “Midwest fans like”, BustedCoverage.com posted a series of photos of a different, current Colts cheerleader in what appeared to be varying states of profound inebriation.
(Current Cheerleader ‘Kaley Collier’ & ‘Kaley C.’ Now ‘Erin C.’ On Colts Site)
After BustedCoverage.com’s “Jay Kool” noted that the Colts had previously fired Wampler for appearing in “risque photos“, the site’s writer posted the following description of the images of the current Colts cheerleader:
Please, Colts front office, just keep this chick around. Don’t let her tongue working on a champagne bottle scare you. And don’t be scared of the six guys on top of her – probably gay. Most of all, don’t be offended by fake licking fake boobs. It’s all good. Kaley is what’s right with NFL cheerleading. For now.
The Colts cheerleader in the photos was referred to by BustedCoverage.com, and later by Indianapolis radio station X103’s website, as “Kaley Collier.”
A month before the BustedCoverage.com photo post, WANE-TV in Fort Wayne, Indiana, reported:
A Decatur woman will soon inspire the spirit of hundreds of thousands of Indianapolis Colts fans.
Kaley C. is one of the newest members of the Colts Cheerleaders.
She stopped by First News Sunday to talk about her past experiences, the process of trying out for the Colts Cheerleading Squad and what she is looking forward to this football season.
The site also posted a video interview of “Kaley C.“, who appeared to be the same woman in the photos posted by BustedCoverage.com and Indianapolis radio station website X103.com.
The Colts official website does not list a “Kaley C.” on its current roster of cheerleaders, but the site does include at least one photo labeled “Kaley” on the Colts.com server. The image was part of a collection of photos featuring Colts cheerleaders at the squad’s most recent swimsuit calendar shoot - and attributed to a Colts cheerleader currently listed on the team’s website as “Erin C.”
Obviously “Erin C.” is the same current Colts cheerleader identified as “Kaley Collier” in the extremely embarrassing photos on an Indianapolis radio station website and the highly-trafficked blog BustedCoverage.com. And the same current Colts cheerleader referred to as “Kaley C.” in an interview with Fort Wayne television station WANE last June.
(Colts: Moral Conduct Clause It Used To Fire Wampler “Speaks for itself”)
Why would Kaley Collier identify herself to her hometown TV news station as “Kaley C.” and the Colts label one of her photos on its official website as “Kaley” considering she’s currently identified as “Erin C.” on the same Colts website?
Might the now-nearly 4,300 Google results for “Kaley Collier”, most of which are related to the photos of her on BustedCoverage.com, have something to do with it?
Unlike Wampler, Collier’s current employ with the Colts, which was confirmed by Pottraz during her deposition last month, is a mystery in lieu of the contract the Colts cited in firing Wampler. A contract that includes the following excerpt from a section called “Special Cheerleader Covenants.”:
A) Cheerleader agrees not to commit any act that will or may create notoriety (including posing nude or semi-nude in or for any media or publication whatsoever), bring cheerleader into public disrepute and/or reflect adversely on club or its sponsors. Cheerleader understands that she will serve as a public representative of the club from time to time and that it is important as part of this employment relationship that she be viewed in a positive manner. Cheerleader agrees to behave in accordance with socially acceptable mores and conventions.
As it pertained to Wampler’s termination, the Colts noted in federal court that the above clause “speaks for itself.” (PDF - #23)
Colts cheerleaders are also legally bound to the following clause in their official team-only “rules and regulations“:
All Squad members must maintain themselves in a professional manner on all online forums. including but not limited to Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, LinkedIn and public online photo sharing (sites.)
Apparently Collier missed the part about maintaining herself in a professional manner on Twitter if this past Tweet from a Twitter account attributed to “Kaley Collier” is any indication.
Though in fairness the Tweet from “KaleyCheer” - “i have no idea how to work this sh–” - happened before Collier was hired as “Erin C.” by the Colts.
But so did the photos Wampler was fired for by the Colts.
So why does Collier have a job when Wampler doesn’t?
Very good question.
The Colts have also never actually established any manner of proof that the Wampler photos contained in the complaint letter to the club were ever uploaded to the internet before Wampler was fired. Or that the photos, as the complaint letter to the team alleged, were available for purchase on Playboy.com. (Perhaps that’s why the Colts allowed Wampler to perform the Sunday after the team received the complaint letter about her without telling the Indonesian female she would be fired the next day?)
Instead, the body paint photos of Wampler only gained widespread distribution on the web after the Colts fired her for, again, photos that the club hasn’t proven were viewed by anyone other than a photographer and the person who sent the complaint letter to the Colts. (Which for all we know could be the same person.)
(How many NFL fans call cheerleaders “ambassadors”?)
There’s also no dispute that Wampler took the photos before she was hired by the Colts and her name nor the Colts themselves were ever associated with the photos cited as the reason for her termination.
One cannot say the same for Collier.
The entire premise of the highly-trafficked sports website and Indianapolis radio station website posting several wildly unflattering photos of Collier, along with thousands of other web locales, was that she was a current Colts cheerleader.
Meanwhile the photos that got Wampler fired showed her covered in body paint similar to a 2005 Sports Illustrated nude body paint model who was covered only by an image of the jersey of an NFL franchise, the Miami Dolphins. (Which required approval by the NFL team in advance.)
Though Wampler and Collier do have two things in common: They weren’t paid for appearing in the photos and neither knew the images in question would ever be disseminated to millions of viewers.
Of course in the latter case the previously, completely unaware public has only the Colts to thank for the now-gone-viral Wampler body paint photos.
Nice to know the Colts aren’t below calling attention to photos of an attractive Indonesian female even if she isn’t, as Colts Cheerleading Coordinator and moral standard-bearer Theresa Pottraz reminded us last February, “the girl next door image that our Midwest fans like.”
Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates
