• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/views.module on line 1118.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_field::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_field.inc on line 1148.
  • strict warning: Declaration of content_handler_field::element_type() should be compatible with views_handler_field::element_type($none_supported = false, $default_empty = false, $inline = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/cck/includes/views/handlers/content_handler_field.inc on line 229.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 599.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 599.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_area::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_area.inc on line 81.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_area_text::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_area_text.inc on line 121.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_query::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/plugins/views_plugin_query.inc on line 181.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/plugins/views_plugin_style_default.inc on line 24.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 136.

Email Proof Ray Blehar is Lying About What He Believes Regarding Victim 2 & Jerry Sandusky

I have made a lot of mistakes in this crusade for the truth of this case, but one of my biggest was trusting Ray Blehar. I brought him into "Framing Paterno," introduced him to Franco Harris, and put him in the original version of my film, "The Framing of Joe Paterno." I did these things even though I quickly suspected that Ray was at least partly insane. I did this largely because he is a pretty good encyclopedia of the details of this case and because there were so few people who seemed willing to take a serious look at the other side of this story.

Slowly though, it became clear to me that Ray was not only nonsensical in his larger, always uncompleted, theories of the case, but that he was wrong about nearly every major prediction/assertion he has made in this story.

Among the examples of this reality are the following:

Ray bet me $2,000 just after the Freeh Report that he would prove that Freeh faked emails. He never did that, and he did not pay me.

Ray claimed that Sandusky was always referred to as coach and Paterno as Joe, a claim needlessly and completely discredited by Sandusky to the point that I had to take this out of the second version of "The Framing of Joe Paterno."

Ray claimed constantly that Rodney Erickson would be arrested, and yet all that has happened was that he has had things at PSU named after him.

Ray constantly claims that PSU "reported" the 2001 incident despite the fact that the administrators defense team has never made that claim in court, Sandusky was not informed of that as would have been required, and if that did happen it would back up Mike McQueary, who Ray has roundly mocked.

Ray claimed to have proven that the janitor who allegedly witnessed the "Victim 8" episode was not working at PSU at the time. When I proved to him that he was indeed working part-time, Ray was forced to admit that his only significant contribution to the factual record was false.

Ray constantly claimed that Kathleen Kane's investigation was going to break open the political conspiracy he has been promising in this case (something I told him from day one was never going to happen), but her report was a complete dud on that front.

 

Ray has also lied to me personally on at least two occasions. The first was when he said he would give out the remainder of the "Hey Media" T-Shirts at the "Rally for Resignations" but ended up effectively selling them for his own expenses (something I wouldn't have had a huge issue with if he had told me that was what he was going to do). The second was when he and Eileen Morgan agreed, in writing, to stop posting at PS4RS in protest of their censoring posts objecting to the PSU BOT (including the "Reform" members) voting for the absurd Sandusky settlements, only to immediately break that pledge without even telling me.

For a number of reasons, I have largely remained silent about all of this, but I can no longer. Now Ray is blatantly lying about Dottie Sandusky and about what he believes regarding the identity of "Victim 2," which is the key to the entire case. Even worse, it is very clear to me and to others that he is doing this primarily because of his intense jealousy of me.

You see, I actually came to believe in Sandusky's innocence largely because of the work of Ray. I think Ray knows there is a very good chance that Sandusky is innocent, but he lacked the courage to say that publicly and his desire to kiss Paterno backside was way too great for him to overcome. Now that I have taken on that cause and we have publicly separated from each other (after Ray was proven wrong on the janitor), he desperately needs me to be perceived as being wrong. It is personal for Ray and has nothing to do with the truth of this matter.

In his latest postings (which have numerous blatant factual errors and distortions), Ray claims that Dottie (to whom he has never spoken and who thinks he is a joke) is delusional/lying when she says that she thinks Jerry is innocent. Ray also claims that Allan Myers, whom I revealed this week to be "Victim 2," is probably not the McQueary victim.

Part of me is thrilled that Ray has made this absurd assertion because, given his dismal track record regarding predictions in this case, I am now even MORE confident that I am right about this subject. But the part that has me agitated, and which forced me to write this post, is that I KNOW Ray is lying about his belief regarding Allan Myers being "Victim 2."

Not only have I already proven that concluding that Allan Myers is not 'Victim 2" requires a completely bizarre alternative explanation for the factual record (which, as usual, Ray doesn't even try to offer) in this video, but I also have numerous email exchanges with Ray proving that he himself has NO doubt that Myers is indeed the guy from the McQueary episode.

I am posting four of these email exchanges here. I am sure Ray's conspiracy "nutty buddies" will try to claim that I have faked/altered these emails, but I will gladly bet ANY amount of money that they are not.

The first exchange (which, like all of them, is read in reverse chronological order) starts just before my first Today Show appearance and after we had spoken on the phone numerous times about me figuring out that Allan Myers was "Victim 2."

Notice that Ray is not only 100% on board, but very early on the morning of the program Ray actually sent a photo of Allan speaking at a major Second Mile event within a year of the McQueary episode. It should also be pointed out that his emails regarding Myers were described, by HIM, in the subject lines: "Quote/speech from V2" and "I found a picture of him (V2)."

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
To: talktozig <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Mar 25, 2013 4:24 am
Subject: Quote/speech from V2

 

Text of report:
Allan Myers, a ninth grader from Clearfield County, was asked to simply say a few words about his thoughts and feelings regarding The Second Mile to an audience of approximately 350 donors at one of our recent donor events. However, what he said was so much more.
 
"The Second Mile is like a road - you lead us in the right direction as you give us positive choices. We're trying our hardest to follow these choices through the rough turns and the bad times and you are there to help us. Like you have been their through our lives, we're still trying to keep up with the positive choices that you have given us through the years. We know you're helping us keep our grades and our goals along those bad turns and your'e the one theat seems to stay and help us like an EMT on someone who is hurt or a doctor working on a patient. You help us through the ups and downs like the road going up a mountain you're there again to try and help us any way you can because it's your love for helping young people in their lives. You have so many positive choices that you never end. You're like the energizer bunny with positive choices. You don't end on a stop sign or stop light, you go and go, never ending like a road."
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: I found a picture of him (V2)

Wow. How ironic. Great job Ray!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 04:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: I found a picture of him (V2)
 
Second Mile 2001 Annual Report (for year ending 8/31/2002). He's a ninth grader in the picture.
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: I found a picture of him (V2)

Thanks Ray. Where is that from?
Best
JZ
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 03:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I found a picture of him (V2)
 
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>;
To:[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Subject: Re: I found a picture of him (V2)
Sent: Mon, Mar 25, 2013 10:47:36 AM
Sent it a few mins ago
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: I found a picture of him (V2)

Thanks Ray. Can you send that to me asap? Sounds like great work.
Best
JZ
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 03:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: I found a picture of him (V2)
 
JZ,
I found a picture of him last night in my Second Mile financial files.
 
Good luck today. My advice: take the approach that you view Sandusky's statements with a degree of skepticism.
 
For example, preface your statements, "If what Sandusky said was true, then McQueary never made eye contact with Sandusky and Victim 2 that night.
 
Again, good luck. I'll be watching.
 
Ray
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: McQ interviewed by Sassano and Rossman 11/23/10 + Sandusky denial confirmed

For a number of reasons, I am not totally outing V2 until tonight at the earliest. Please keep it that way.

Best
JZ

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: McQ interviewed by Sassano and Rossman 11/23/10 + Sandusky denial confirmed
 
The non-column run by Ganim that you made fun of.
 
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: McQ interviewed by Sassano and Rossman 11/23/10 + Sandusky denial confirmed

Please keep everything quiet until monday.

Just so I understand, what exactly are you referring to with regard to him outing himself in the fall? That is confusing to me.

Best
JZ

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: McQ interviewed by Sassano and Rossman 11/23/10 + Sandusky denial confirmed
 
OK. I've been tempted too. It is a fact that he went public back in the fall.
 
Agree, No name, no age, nothing like that. Only what has been in the public domain, until you break it.
 
I did have some fun with the people already OUTRAGED over you interviewing Sandusky in jail. Some morons even thought that they let him out of jail to go on TV. Yes, that is the level of people we are dealing with.
 
Ray

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: McQ interviewed by Sassano and Rossman 11/23/10 + Sandusky denial confirmed

Ray:

I get the temptation, but please keep the Victim 2 stuff to a minimum until Monday. Then, I certainly hope you will write a lot about it.

Thanks
JZ

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

 

 

 

Then, a few months later, Ray not only makes it VERY VERY clear that Allan Myers is "Victim 2" (and that he shares my view of how Allan became a "victim"), but he also, very importantly, says that he is "95% certain" that Sandusky never engaged in sexual activity! He also makes yet another totally false assertion when he claims that he has proof of Second Mile "payoffs" to keep victims quiet. There has never been a shred of evidence of this even though "victims" would have had a HUGE incentive to reveal this because it would prove they are victims.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
To: talktozig <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....

 

I believe as you do, that Sandusky is a pedophile, but of the non-sexual variety. I'm about 95% certain, but I really wished the state would have conducted an investigation by the rules in 1998. That investigation would have included a physical examination of Victim 6. Also, the 2008-2011 investigation should have included a physical examination of Victim 9. There are usually scars or skin tags from healing in the case of anal rapes. Also, with Victim 6, there would have been fissures if the exam was conducted early.

I think both exams would have turned out negative.

Payoffs: Even though Sandusky was not raping or even sexually assaulting these kids, the mere fact that he was showering with them was enough to make parents complain. The Second Mile didn't want the complaints to be public knowledge because Sandusky was undoubtedly the top fund raiser from the charity. History has proven the viability of Second Mile with Jerry Sandusky's reputation in the toilet. Way too much money at risk for Second Mile to let that happen. Second Mile paid off the families of these kids and they did it as cheaply as possible.

Where PSU comes into this is their financial arrangements with The Second Mile. Second Mile was essentially a money laundering operation that threw picnics and ran camps for kids. And they lied about how much money they spent doing those things. I won't get into the details, but this involved some pretty shady stuff to make it work.

This is the side of the scandal that the Feds are investigating.
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....
So now you are saying PSU took part in the cover ups?

Ray man, you really confuse me. I thought you didn't believe that Sandusky was really raping boys. If he wasn't, then why the payoffs?

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....
 
LOL! Allan Myers didn't know he was a victim until Shubin told him he was. You know it, I know it, and Myers knows it.
 
Paid off after they were "victimized." Sandusky told to stay away from them by Raykovitz and Genovese.
 
You can believe what you want to believe, but I can say without reservation that PSU has yet to see the worst of what's coming at them.
 
And they have no idea what's coming. Neither does Second Mile.
 
 
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....

Yeah, I've heard the car story, but it just never rang true. Did any of those who supposedly got cars later become victims? If not, why not?

Cars are a REALLY stupid payoff device as they are easily traceable.

Why did Allan Myers not get a pay off?!

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
 
From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....
 
V6 was nearly 12 (11 years 10 months)

Buying a car for a parent who complained qualifies as a payoff.

Heim's denials about that pretty much prove that it happened.

Numerous people in State College can tell you the make and model of one of the cars (FTR, Cadillac Escalade).

More than one car was purchased.

 
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....

I appreciate all of that, but we must have a very different definition of payoff.

Btw, how old was V6 when the shower episode occurred?

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
 
From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....
 
Also, remember who the prosecution was in this case -- not exactly law biding citizens. You saw what a sham the Sandusky trial was and you know that the charges against Spanier and Curley are a sham as well.
 
Another well placed source in the OAG's office stated that they were told NOT to investigate Second Mile.
 
How else do you explain no charges for failure to report against Raykovitz.
 
The Feds aren't playing by Linda Kelly's rules anymore. Second Mile is on their plate. You can confirm that with Lubrano.
 
The Federal investigation will show the financial side of the scandal.
 
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....

I don't know what that means. It makes absolutely no sense. Those who would have been offered/taken such payoffs would be sprinting to use that as proof they were victims to get PSU to also pay up. The prosecution would have been dying to use that evidence. There is just no way to keep a lid on that.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
 
From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....
 
US Department of Justice.
 
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't push this point any longer....

Not sure I buy that Ray. We would have heard that already. What is the nature of that info?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
 
From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Ziegler<[email protected]>
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: I wouldn't push this point any longer....
 
30 Jun
Where are Sandusky pay offs? Michael Jackson paid £23MILLION buying silence of dozens of boys he abused over 15 yrs http://mirr.im/19MlWCK
 
 
I have very reliable information that Second Mile made payoffs to silence complaining parents.
 

Keep this between you and me.

Ray

 

 

Then, later that month, Ray once again emails me regarding Allan Myers being "Victim 2" while also showing some significant ignorance regarding the facts of the Myers story/timeline (for the record, Myers also had a DUI, represented by attorney Andrew Shubin, before the story broke and he became a "victim").

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
To: talktozig <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 8:43 pm
Subject: Re: Some more thoughts on the Sandusky interview

 

Ok. Just checked. You're right. Police interviewed him, but no grand jury.
 
Can't say why he saved the voicemails. Myers DUI appeared to have happened after the trial. Timeline is interesting.
 
Sep 2011 - Sandusky calls and leaves VM
Nov 2011 - Myers says nothing happened (after indictment)
Sometime in 2011-12 - Lawyers probably tell him he can get $$$$ from PSU - they get a cut of course.
Oct 2012 - DUI
 
 
 
 

From: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
To: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Some more thoughts on the Sandusky interview
Thanks Ray. Just one thing. I don't think V2 testified to the gj. He was just interviewed by police and strongly defended Jerry. My only concern about him is why did he save those voicemails.

Did the interview think he might be "innocent"?

Best
JZ

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
Subject: Some more thoughts on the Sandusky interview
 
JZ,
I finally had a chance to read through the whole interview. I was unaware (and if I'm unaware, most of the public will be too) that V2 testified before the grand jury. I don't think anyone has written about that. I believe you said the police contacted him and interviewed him, but it kind of got lost in the other news about Sandusky's voice mails.
 
Interesting stuff on the histories of the victims. One was an abused child, thus it would be easy for that victim to "transfer" those crimes to Jerry. And we both know Rittmayer (V10) is a liar. Sandusky never knew him, which makes me wonder about Sassano testifying that V10's name was marked with an asterisk on the camper list. Also, interesting stuff on Matt Sandusky.
 
I'm finishing up Report 3 on the Sandusky investigation and have added a Special Report about the Victim 8 incident. I've disproven that incident with rock solid evidence.
 
Ray
 

From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 8:46 AM
Subject: Interesting statement/answer by Sandusky
JZ,
Maybe it's just the way he talks, but this answer gives the impression that he did touch some victims sexually...|
 
 
John: Jerry, did you touch Victim Two sexually in the shower that night?
Jerry: No.
John: Did you ever touch him sexually?
Jerry: No. Victim Two, no.
 
Your thoughts?
 
Ray

 

Finally, last fall Ray responded to me sending him an email exchange between me and Jim Clemente. This was regarding what happened when Jim likely lied to me about Allan Myers being in contact with a CSA friend of his and requesting that I not say his name on CNN. Once again, the issue of Allan Myers being "Victim 2" is, just as it should be based on the factual record, is not even remotely in question.

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Blehar <[email protected]>
To: John Ziegler <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Sep 18, 2013 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Jim Clemente
Hi John,
I've been rather busy. Missed the twitter exchange with you and Jim. When did that happen?
 
After reading through this, I'm inclined to believe that Chris lied to you and Clemente about Victim 2's wishes. Clemente obviously put a lot of trust in what Chris told him because Clemente rarely questions the victims or victim's advocates.
 
And now that you've told Jim that you were lied to by Chris, his "trusted colleague," he is taking his colleague's word over yours.
 
Clemente's analysis of the Sandusky case suffered from "confirmation bias," which was the same bias in the Freeh Report. Jim had concluded Jerry was a pillar of the community pedophile and in the top 1% of groomers - I agree with that assessment. However, he did not question the crimes (V5, V9, and V10) that did not fit the pattern of grooming and/or compliant victimization.
 
I'd just like him to answer honestly about those three victims and if he believes their stories.
 
I don't think there's much to gain on your end by publishing the e-mail exchange.
 
Resurfacing the whole CNN, hacking, "outing of Victim 2," TMZ fiasco isn't worth it.
 
Regards,
Ray

 

I fully realize that for conspiracy nut jobs the facts are never going to matter, but the record should be clear that Ray Blehar is a lying fraud.

As for those who will claim that maybe Ray changed his mind (just like I did about Sandusky's guilt), the reality is that the only thing we have learned for sure since then is that Allan Myers got $3 million from Penn State for being "Victim 2" and there are MANY other new indicators that he is in fact the kid and that he was never abused. There is not one shred of credible new information pointing towards the direction of Allan Myers not being "Victim 2" (or, for that matter, Sandusky ever having had sexual contact with a boy).

I guess the most bizarre part about Ray's public stance on Allan Myers is that he (just like Eileen Morgan) has gone to extraordinary lengths to discredit Mike McQueary's testimony, but he doesn't want to (publicly) accept that the story of Allan Myers, which backs up his view of McQueary 100%, is indeed from the right guy. I don't even know how anything Ray is doing/saying even theoretically helps refute the case against Penn State and Joe Paterno. If anything, Ray seems to be trying to further implicate them (though, admittedly, it is impossible to know for sure since Ray never tells a remotely full story).

Right there is the ultimate proof that this is not about the truth for Ray. This is about a vendetta against me. One that truth-seekers, regardless of their opinions of this case, should resoundingly reject.