PDA

View Full Version : Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

StellarsJay
03-21-2012, 12:09 AM
Came across this while looking up John Seasock, the psychologist who assessed victim 6- I hoped to find a link to Second Mile.
Did find Amandola's complete list of demands- 46 pages.
http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

J. J. in Phila
03-21-2012, 12:10 AM
The prosecutors were ordered to turn over some of the documents to Amendola.http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/20/3133421/judge-in-jerry-sandusky-case-orders.html

J. J. in Phila
03-21-2012, 08:34 AM
Apparently, Dr. Seacock was not the only psychologist. The mother of Victim 6 brought one in.

“And that psychologist concluded that this incident, what the boy described, and I’m paraphrasing ... the psychologist concluded that what the boy described was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” the source said.

Amedola may be making the <modsnip> argument:

“We’re going to argue that it was investigated by Gricar, a seasoned, nonpolitical, professional prosecutor, and the jury can take it from there,” Amendola said. “No. 6 defies explanation why they are pursuing it, and I think the mother has something to do with that.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

I would say to Mr. Amendola, <modsnip>, I will be the first to say that in looking at the record of RFG, and someone who does not have a tie to him, he was a hard hitting prosecutor who often personally prosecuted difficult cases. He wasn't one in the case of Victim 6.

Reader
03-21-2012, 02:16 PM
Apparently, Dr. Seacock was not the only psychologist. The mother of Victim 6 brought one in.

“And that psychologist concluded that this incident, what the boy described, and I’m paraphrasing ... the psychologist concluded that what the boy described was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” the source said.

Amedola may be making the <modsnip> argument:

“We’re going to argue that it was investigated by Gricar, a seasoned, nonpolitical, professional prosecutor, and the jury can take it from there,” Amendola said. “No. 6 defies explanation why they are pursuing it, and I think the mother has something to do with that.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

I would say to Mr. Amendola,<modsnip>, I will be the first to say that in looking at the record of RFG, and someone who does not have a tie to him, he was a hard hitting prosecutor who often personally prosecuted difficult cases. He wasn't one in the case of Victim 6.

It is puzzling why this case was handled differently by Gricar, BUT nevertheless, I hope this prosecutor does not let Amendola's bluff on the case influence him. It was definitely lewd/grooming behavior and should be prosecuted. It does not matter if it was seen or not, it happened to the child and was sexual abuse IMO. Sexual abuse does not have to be rape, it also includes molestation or unwanted touching. We have such cases charged and prosecuted every day...just check out this entire forum for children's cases. Of course the mother is pursuing it...it affected her child all these years in a negative and emotional manner. This child was traumatized by JS's acts with him and should have his justice too!

Reader
03-21-2012, 02:29 PM
200 interviewed in Penn State investigation

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=18869845&ps=1013&srce=news_class&action=3&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_SHNWU00L3_UNEWS

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) — Former FBI chief Louis Freeh and his investigators have conducted 200 interviews in their extensive probe of the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State, asking questions that go beyond the charges against retired assistant coach Jerry Sandusky and into the relationship between the football program and the administration.

Since November, when the Penn State Board of Trustees hired his group to examine the Sandusky case, Freeh's team has talked to people ranging from high-level administrators to retired secretaries to current and former staffers in the athletic department. That includes many employees who worked at the football building while the late Joe Paterno was coach.

The trustees themselves also are among those to be questioned, said board chairwoman Karen Peetz, who told The Associated Press 200 people have been interviewed in all.

As Freeh seeks to fulfill his mission — he is charged with finding out how Penn State failed to stop an alleged predator in its midst, and with recommending changes aimed at preventing abuse — board members facing criticism are stressing anew that the former federal judge and his team have complete independence. They see the breadth of his investigation as a sign of that.

"They're extremely reputable, impeccable credentials, a mandate to investigate thoroughly," trustee Joel Myers said after a board meeting last week in Hershey. "Let the chips fall where they may so we come out of this a better institution."
------

Trustee Keith Eckel, who was interviewed for two hours last week, said investigators were thorough.

"My interview started when I was born and went through to now. I'm serious," Eckel said. "It covered a lot of ground."
------

Tomalis also suggested that Freeh is in contact with other investigatory bodies. There are ongoing state, federal and NCAA probes into Sandusky and Penn State's handling of the sex abuse allegations, and Freeh's law enforcement background is "one of the reasons why we chose (him) in the first place, because he has that ability to communicate and interact with the other investigatory agencies," said Tomalis, Pennsylvania's education secretary.
------

"I have no doubt based on my conversations with 22 trustees that the decision to fire Joe was not based on the Sandusky matter," prominent donor Anthony Lubrano, who is running for a seat on the board, wrote in an email. "Rather, for almost eight years the trustees wanted him removed (but) didn't know how to do so without suffering the ire of the alumni."



More at link....

J. J. in Phila
03-21-2012, 03:44 PM
It is puzzling why this case was handled differently by Gricar, BUT nevertheless, I hope this prosecutor does not let Amendola's bluff on the case influence him. It was definitely lewd/grooming behavior and should be prosecuted. It does not matter if it was seen or not, it happened to the child and was sexual abuse IMO. Sexual abuse does not have to be rape, it also includes molestation or unwanted touching. We have such cases charged and prosecuted every day...just check out this entire forum for children's cases. Of course the mother is pursuing it...it affected her child all these years in a negative and emotional manner. This child was traumatized by JS's acts with him and should have his justice too!

They won't. Grooming itself is not a crime (I didn't say I approved, but it is not illegal). It is considered "open lewdness" if the victim sees it.

When this story broke, I started reading the case law on open lewdness. It can include a number of things. If the person does something where it can be seen, "amusing yourself" in his car, he can be charged with it. If he is covered with something and "looks" like he's "amusing himself," he can be convicted of it. If she is streaking, she can be charged with it.

There are exceptions, like if the people around expect it and okay with it, but a child can't give that consent. Even if someone was, er, "amused himself," in his own home in front of a child, he can be charge with it, even if the child in no way excited him.

It's basically a law saying you shouldn't do certain things except in private and between consenting adults. I kind of think bear hugging a child in the shower from behind, while both of parties are naked, probably falls under that definition.

StellarsJay
03-21-2012, 11:48 PM
I'm still wondering what the Second Mile actually did for youth.
Sounds like Big Brothers/Sisters may absorb the Center County work:

"We have looked closely at what services The Second Mile (has) provided here in Centre County," said Andrea Boyles, the bureau CEO. She said those services fall largely into three categories: a Friend Fitness mentoring program, a separate activity program called Friend, and a summer camp.

Friend Fitness, through which young people develop exercise habits with the help of mentors, counts 27 youth participants in Centre County.

"We would welcome those kids and their volunteers into Big Brothers Big Sisters (of Centre County)" if they so desire, Boyles said. She said the Youth Service Bureau's existing staff could handle the added workload. (Big Brothers Big Sisters, she noted, always needs more volunteer mentors.)

The Friend program, for its part, enables youth participants to meet for monthly activities with Penn State students. It's not immediately clear how many Centre County residents take part, but the Youth Service Bureau thinks it can absorb the program locally without overburdening its infrastructure, Boyles said.

Separately, the Second Mile summer-camp program enrolled nearly 50 county residents last year. Maintaining it would be a greater challenge for the Youth Service Bureau, Boyles said.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/youth-service-bureau-prepared-to-maintain-second-mile-services-in-centre-co-1030223/

J. J. in Phila
03-22-2012, 12:03 AM
Apparently, the psychologist report and determination that there was no child abuse is not admissible in court and, as such, should not really have affected the case:

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Prosecutor-says-latest-twist-in-Sandusky-case/Qb3xs9oz30qCSZi4rusrog.cspx

So we seem to have one report saying Sandusky didn't sexually abuse Victim 6. But:

A. Sandusky isn't actually charged with sexually of abuse Victim 6.

B. There may be another report saying Sandusky was trying to groom Victim 6.

C. Neither report is admissible.

Concerned Papa
03-22-2012, 07:31 AM
200 interviewed in Penn State investigation

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=18869845&ps=1013&srce=news_class&action=3&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_SHNWU00L3_UNEWS

More at link....

From the link above:

Freeh's team has talked to people ranging from high-level administrators to retired secretaries to current and former staffers in the athletic department. That includes many employees who worked at the football building while the late Joe Paterno was coach

Linda Woodring, a retired personnel specialist in the athletic department, said she spent "a couple hours" at Freeh's State College office. She declined to reveal what she told them, saying "they asked that it remain confidential," but that the questions focused on her job. Woodring worked at Penn State for more than 40 years and processed Sandusky's retirement.

I'm glad to see this. It's my opinion that you'll get a lot closer to the truth in this case from secretaries, janitors, hotel maids, cab drivers, waiters, and desk clerks than you ever will from the cya schuck and jive rhetoric we've been hearing from university presidents, athletic directors, charity bigwigs, lawyers, and Governors.

J. J. in Phila
03-22-2012, 03:27 PM
Amendola is moving to dismiss.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20OMNIBUS%20PRETRIAL%20MOTION.pdf.pdf

95 pages. :)

pittsburghgirl
03-22-2012, 04:31 PM
Apparently, the psychologist report and determination that there was no child abuse is not admissible in court and, as such, should not really have affected the case:

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Prosecutor-says-latest-twist-in-Sandusky-case/Qb3xs9oz30qCSZi4rusrog.cspx

So we seem to have one report saying Sandusky didn't sexually abuse Victim 6. But:

A. Sandusky isn't actually charged with sexually of abuse Victim 6.

B. There may be another report saying Sandusky was trying to groom Victim 6.

C. Neither report is admissible.

We definitely have two reports, according to Ganim, and based on an interview with someone who has read the whole police file. One was from a psychologist called in by the mother at the time the child reported the "shower" incident and who continued to see the child, who concluded that what happened to Victim 6 was consistent with what we have called here "grooming." The other concluded that “Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky." That is Seasock. His report came in two days before the case was closed.

Now, it doesn't seem surprising to me that two psychologists might disagree about any case, so I am not going to hop to a conclusion about that. And it doesn't seem surprising that Schreffler or his superiors would want a "second opinion" and not just rely on a psychologist chosen and hired by the parent. IMHO, we don't yet have enough evidence to know why the second psychologist was hired or how he was chosen. We do know that the DPW investigator Lauro did not know there were any psych reports, so he certainly did not choose or recommend him. And the investigative phase was in the hands of the PSU police and not the DA's office, so it was almost certainly not RG's choice of psychologists.

The TV news story JJ cites indicates that psychologists can't testify to their opinions about whether abuse occured, but they can testify about things they were told by others, if the judge decides to admit the testimony.

That is one thing to remember: what is admissible in court is determined in pre-trial motions and hearings, etc., and is ruled on by a judge who knows both the "letter of the law" and the case precedents. So we all must wait and see. I surely hope both get to testify to at least clear up who hired Seasock, etc. And of course Amendola will file motions to dismiss at every turn. He is trying to get his client's case kicked from court. All defense attorneys do this; it seldom works, but it does force prosecutors to show their hand as to the kinds of arguments that will be made.

Both of these articles, yesterday and today, are well worth reading in full. We can only quote 10%, and it is impossible to get the full idea without reading them both. I will post a few selections below.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state.html

pittsburghgirl
03-22-2012, 04:46 PM
From http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

What wasn’t made public until now was that two days before Gricar closed the case, a psychologist concluded Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky.

This timing is very interesting, and as the article speculates, may explain why RG decided not to prosecute. (But as we know, he is not here to confirm that speculation.)

The article also reminds us that the investigation was done by Penn State police, and not Gricar, who would have depended on the contents of the investigation when he made a decision about whether to bring charges:

The source reviewed the entire police report from 1998. The investigation, which was done by Penn State University police, took a few weeks. It included a sting in which police set up a meeting between the boy’s mother and Sandusky as officers hid in another room. [Emphasis added]

From http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state.html
Jerry Lauro, the DPW investigator, did not know about either report:

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. [Snipped to stay within TOS guidelines]

“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room,” Lauro said last year. “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.’ “


All of this raises questions about what RG was told by investigators--and in fact whether the PSU "investigation" was part of a cover-up. Certainly the fact that Lauro was not told, if he is reporting his interaction with Schreffler accurately, does not indicate good faith, as these cases are customarily pursued both by child welfare agencies, usually CYS in Pennsylvania but in this case the state DPW and the police and PSU should have shared these reports.

Tipstaff
03-22-2012, 04:54 PM
Lawyer for Sandusky asks that charges be dropped
March 22, 2012 4:30 pm


By Paula Reed Ward / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


An attorney for former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky today filed a motion asking that all of the charges against his client be dismissed.

Joe Amendola wrote in his 31-page motion that many of the charges against his client lack specificity to such a degree that he "cannot adequately prepare a defense to those charges." In the other counts, Mr. Amendola wrote, there is a lack of sufficient evidence to support criminal charges.

The defense previously requested a bill of particulars from the state attorney general's office, seeking greater detail of the individual charges against Mr. Sandusky.

In its response, the prosecution has said it provided what it could, and that some details were missing because of the age of the alleged victims at the time and because of the length of time since the incidents.

Without more detailed information about dates, times and locations, Mr. Amendola said, the commonwealth is treating Mr. Sandusky unfairly.

Referring to Victim No. 2, the boy Mr. Sandusky is accused of sexually abusing in a football locker room shower, Mr. Amendola argues that the commonwealth has acknowledged that the victim is unknown and still unidentified, and so "the Commonwealth cannot sustain these charges at trial simply based upon the testimony of [former Penn State graduate assistant] Michael McQueary."

The wide-ranging pretrial motion also includes claims that many of the counts against Mr. Sandusky are improper because the statute of limitations on them has run.


Link to this article is at www.post-gazette.com

J. J. in Phila
03-22-2012, 05:44 PM
We definitely have two reports, according to Ganim, and based on an interview with someone who has read the whole police file. One was from a psychologist called in by the mother at the time the child reported the "shower" incident and who continued to see the child, who concluded that what happened to Victim 6 was consistent with what we have called here "grooming." The other concluded that “Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky." That is Seasock. His report came in two days before the case was closed.


There is some question if Seasock had his Ph D at the time. A 2003 list of his credentials does not list it. http://www.childwelfare.gov/calendar/cbconference/fourteenth/presentations/112.cfm He was listed as a licensed professional counselor. There was also some question on if he ever interviewed Victim 6.

The one hired by Victim 6's mother was the one dealing with "grooming." As I indicated previously, "grooming" is not, in itself, illegal. It might be an indication that there should be a greater investigation.

Lauro indicated that never saw either report. He said that it would have changed his decision.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state.html

Keep in mind that Lauro did not make the decision on if to prosecute. Also keep in mind that Sandusky is not charged with sexual abuse in the 1998 incident, so a finding that he did not commit "sexual abuse" is pretty meaningless.

pinktoes
03-22-2012, 05:47 PM
I have read that Gricar and Sandusky share a mutual acquaintance who might be of some interest in how the 2 cases are related. This is someone in the Raystown Lake/7 Point Marina/Huntingdon/Juniata College local. Most likely the Lake and/or Marina.

Anyone know who that might be?

J. J. in Phila
03-22-2012, 05:53 PM
All of this raises questions about what RG was told by investigators--and in fact whether the PSU "investigation" was part of a cover-up. Certainly the fact that Lauro was not told, if he is reporting his interaction with Schreffler accurately, does not indicate good faith, as these cases are customarily pursued both by child welfare agencies, usually CYS in Pennsylvania but in this case the state DPW and the police and PSU should have shared these reports.

The report from Seasock seems to have given to the DA. The other may have been, since it was commissioned by the victim's mother. The mother seems to have been on the ball.

And, as noted, the conclusions are not admissible.

pittsburghgirl
03-22-2012, 07:05 PM
The report from Seasock seems to have given to the DA. The other may have been, since it was commissioned by the victim's mother. The mother seems to have been on the ball.

And, as noted, the conclusions are not admissible.

What source is there for the notion that either report went to RG since Lauro was advised of neither?

The mother surely did a great job, first in contacting police and again in securing a psychologist. But how likely is it that she would have given a report to RG, since the investigation was being conducted by PSU police? I would think was PSU police who would have told RG. But if they didn't tell Lauro, when the child protection investigators usually work with police, it is possible they didn't give those to RG. I hope that as the case moves forward there will be more information about the process, although without RG to speak on his own behalf, for his own actions, we can't know for sure what he knew.

The psychologists' reports are very important in sex abuse cases, regardless of what various states' rules of evidence allow for in court. One major question for investigators is always the credibility of the victim. Remember that a child alleging improper sexual contact or sex abuse or some related inappropriate action will have to restify in court or in some place on videotape and will be subject to cross-examination. Law enforcement officers may not be highly experienced or even trained to interview children, and do so in such a way so as to draw out what happened when kids may not have the vocabulary or concepts. In a rape case involving an adult, there is often physical evidence taken by both law enforcement and medical professionals; in the case of children, physical evidence is often long gone and the case will be based on the children's testimony, other witnesses and circumstantial evidence, e.g., phone calls and the like. A psychologist can help investigators by affirming (or not) that the child's account is consistent with abuse and whether the child is likely to be able to testify effectively and without incurring more trauma. So the psychologists' reports can impact investigators' and prosecutors' decision making even if the psychologists can't offer their opinions in court on whether the children were abused.

J. J. in Phila
03-22-2012, 07:30 PM
What source is there for the notion that either report went to RG since Lauro was advised of neither?

Today's Patriot-News article that I linked to.


The mother surely did a great job, first in contacting police and again in securing a psychologist. But how likely is it that she would have given a report to RG, since the investigation was being conducted by PSU police?


She was a witness and almost certainly, unless RFG dropped the ball royally, he'd interview a key witness.

I would think was PSU police who would have told RG. But if they didn't tell Lauro, when the child protection investigators usually work with police, it is possible they didn't give those to RG.


They probably would not have gotten the report. They really are not ones calling in psychological reports and going out of town for it.


The psychologists' reports are very important in sex abuse cases, regardless of what various states' rules of evidence allow for in court. One major question for investigators is always the credibility of the victim.


In this case, you have an admission, which Amendola is trying to suppress. You also have three other witnesses to that admission.

In going with the rest of your post, it is not even clear that Seasock actually interviewed Victim 6.

pittsburghgirl
03-22-2012, 07:35 PM
There is some question if Seasock had his Ph D at the time. A 2003 list of his credentials does not list it. http://www.childwelfare.gov/calendar/cbconference/fourteenth/presentations/112.cfm He was listed as a licensed professional counselor. There was also some question on if he ever interviewed Victim 6.

The one hired by Victim 6's mother was the one dealing with "grooming." As I indicated previously, "grooming" is not, in itself, illegal. It might be an indication that there should be a greater investigation.

Lauro indicated that never saw either report. He said that it would have changed his decision.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_shtate.html

Keep in mind that Lauro did not make the decision on if to prosecute. Also keep in mind that Sandusky is not charged with sexual abuse in the 1998 incident, so a finding that he did not commit "sexual abuse" is pretty meaningless.

Hmm. I wonder what happens next when someone like Lauro or a CYS investigator finds sex abuse (or related action)? One of the articles linked above indicates that these two entities (LE and CYS/DPW) at times arrive at different conclusions; what would have happened if, say, the police closed their case but CYS/DPW found abuse?

Regarding "charges," these result from an investigation; charges or no charges are the result of what police learn, and the DA's assessment of whether that case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court. And of course, because someone makes an allegation or LE suspect s someone committed a crime doesn't mean it is true.

The point of the investigation is to investigate what happened and then see if the "what happened" breaks any laws, not to start by picking a charge and then proving it. It would be possible, for example, in a case like this one, that a child might tell a good investigator or a psychologist more than he would tell his mother and so what might have started looking like "corrupting the morals" or some such thing can turn into a lot more--or not.

And just as we don't know whether psychologists would be able to testify in court about what they were told, we do not know whether a judge would have allowed testimony from the people who were present at the sting. We can never assume we know what is admissible in court.

pittsburghgirl
03-22-2012, 07:46 PM
Today's Patriot-News article that I linked to.



She was a witness and almost certainly, unless RFG dropped the ball royally, he'd interview a key witness.

They probably would not have gotten the report. They really are not ones calling in psychological reports and going out of town for it.

In this case, you have an admission, which Amendola is trying to suppress. You also have three other witnesses to that admission.

In going with the rest of your post, it is not even clear that Seasock actually interviewed Victim 6.

Well, if Seasock didn't interview the victim--?? What does that say about the investigation?

JJ, I am not clear what you mean. I did not see any statement in either article that verifies WHAT RG saw or knew. One would think the police would tell RG about both psychologists but if they didn't tell Lauro, I am not going to assume they told RG. It may be that the Seasock report was enough to cover PSU police and they just told RG as they told Lauro that there was "nothing to it." DAs rely on the police investigation both to determine charges and to begin building a case for prosecution. I think it is very clear that PSU police have allowed the perception to be out there that they did a full investigation but RG declined to prosecute--and therefore there was no cover-up in 1998. That Schreffler never told Lauro--whose report and conclusions could have bolstered a prosecution had he found abuse of some kind--about EITHER report suggests an interest in keeping those reports quiet. And if RG didn't know what the first psychologist said and/or if Seasock never talked to the kid but his report was allowed to "counter" the first one, then RG didn't have all he needed to arrive at a decision, He may still have decided not to prosecute,for the same reasons the current prosecutors considered not including Victim 6.

I am very hopeful, though, that the full truth about Sandusky, at least insofar as the first 10 victims we know about are concerned, will come out. May we also learn more about RG's role, through actual evidence.

J. J. in Phila
03-22-2012, 09:24 PM
Hmm. I wonder what happens next when someone like Lauro or a CYS investigator finds sex abuse (or related action)? One of the articles linked above indicates that these two entities (LE and CYS/DPW) at times arrive at different conclusions; what would have happened if, say, the police closed their case but CYS/DPW found abuse?


According to JKA, it is a civil matter.


Regarding "charges," these result from an investigation; charges or no charges are the result of what police learn, and the DA's assessment of whether that case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court. And of course, because someone makes an allegation or LE suspect s someone committed a crime doesn't mean it is true.


Okay, but let's remember that the AG has charged, with less information than there was in 1998.


The point of the investigation is to investigate what happened and then see if the "what happened" breaks any laws, not to start by picking a charge and then proving it.


They would look at "what happened" and look at all statutes to if what allegedly happened violates any of them. In 1998, there were a lot of statutes that the action did not violate. Unlawful Contact with a Minor was one, the felony.


It would be possible, for example, in a case like this one, that a child might tell a good investigator or a psychologist more than he would tell his mother and so what might have started looking like "corrupting the morals" or some such thing can turn into a lot more--or not.


A psychologist would not necessarily understand the legal aspects of the case. He might conclude that there was no sexual assault, but might miss totally Corruption of Minors, or Endangering Welfare Of Children. Neither of those has a sexual element.

J. J. in Phila
03-22-2012, 09:37 PM
Well, if Seasock didn't interview the victim--?? What does that say about the investigation?

We don't know, because the guy who could call in experts disappeared in 2005.


JJ, I am not clear what you mean. I did not see any statement in either article that verifies WHAT RG saw or knew. One would think the police would tell RG about both psychologists but if they didn't tell Lauro, I am not going to assume they told RG.


If a DA, or ADA, any one, not just RFG, is doing their job, the evaluate witnesses. The talk to them. RFG did talk to expert witnesses; he was actually sanctioned a few years later for improperly contacting a defense expert.

If RFG wasn't reviewing these witnesses, or had an ADA do it, that is a serious lapse.

pittsburghgirl
03-22-2012, 11:58 PM
1. Not if RG didn't know about witnesses because the police didn't tell him or had Seasock's report but not the other one. The lapse here, it seems to me, is PSU police not sharing what they knew with Lauro, and in characterizing the case as "nothing to it," if Lauro recalls correctly. The psychologist's reports were in the police file, and clearly it was Schreffler that Lauro expected should have told him, based on his statements.

2. Psychologists don't need to know the law; they aren't defining child sex abuse by statute, but based on criteria within their own profession. They have seem many patients who are crime victims and no doubt others who make claims that are false. That's something that might explain why two psychologists might arrive at different conclusions, if one was used to testifying for the prosecution or doing forensic (psychological) exams and the other primarily evaluate and treat private patients. But I have no idea how and why these two arrived at different conclusions. But they aren't applying the law; they are examining a person. It is up to LE to make use of that resource, not for the psychologists to match their knowledge to lists of laws. I have known a number of psychologists who testify in court, either to offer expert testimony (on memory or the indicators of some mental condition) or specifically on the accused's mental condition, etc.). They are not trying to match up their diagnosis or expertise with the law or interpret the law; they are offering the perspective of their discipline. The judge and attorney are there to connect the dots between expert testimony of psychologists and other experts and the law for thejudge ornthe jury, depending on the type of trial.

3. We don't know who called Seasock in or why or what RG was told. The report was in the police file, which may hold significant answers about Seasock's participation.

4. Just reiterating that 1998 was not a strong case in 1998 and certainly a lesser case than either 2002 on its own or the whole case, considered together.

StellarsJay
03-23-2012, 01:00 AM
A search on Seasock indicates an individual who has built up a career where he is now lecturing at The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
He has gone through working with sexually abused youth to young sex offenders, and is now working with post traumatic stress.
I guess we all massage our resumes.
You can find his resume through a search on RENAISSANCE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COUNSELING CORPORATION - CONSULTANT/SPECIALIST (the URL is way too long to list here.)
In the resume his description of his duties for Wyoming Valley Childrens Services seems to conflict in time and nature with his statement in his lawsuit against the same agency for firing him. (differences in duration, title, part time vs full time?) He lists working almost simultaneously for several clients as if they were all full time jobs.

He was doing assessments and court advocacy. Perhaps the one he did on the 1998 victim will now be come back to embarrass him.

J. J. in Phila
03-23-2012, 08:00 AM
1. Not if RG didn't know about witnesses because the police didn't tell him or had Seasock's report but not the other one. The lapse here, it seems to me, is PSU police not sharing what they knew with Lauro, and in characterizing the case as "nothing to it," if Lauro recalls correctly. The psychologist's reports were in the police file, and clearly it was Schreffler that Lauro expected should have told him, based on his statements.


Gricar should have been looking at the police report; the police are not in a position to say, "We're not going to show it to you." It is also clear that there was contact between Schreffler and the DA's Office and that it was not by RFG in the normal way.


2. Psychologists don't need to know the law; they aren't defining child sex abuse by statute, but based on criteria within their own profession. They have seem many patients who are crime victims and no doubt others who make claims that are false.

And he didn't determine the came was false, only that something that nobody claimed happened did not happen. He could have said that Sandusky didn't rob the victim. Nobody has claimed Sandusky did rob him.


3. We don't know who called Seasock in or why or what RG was told. The report was in the police file, which may hold significant answers about Seasock's participation.


The person who talked to, and I believe hired, the prosecution expert witnesses was either the DA or the ADA handling the case. There was no ADA handling this case.

4. Just reiterating that 1998 was not a strong case in 1998 and certainly a lesser case than either 2002 on its own or the whole case, considered together.

Oh, please. 1998, Sandusky admitted the act in front of three witnesses, there is a known victim, and, in 1998, there was another witness.

In 2002, no admission, no known victim, a witness, and some questions about what that witness could have seen.

Look at the (bad, legally) arguments Amendola is making to try to get the 1998 witness statements out.

J. J. in Phila
03-23-2012, 08:45 AM
You can find his resume through a search on RENAISSANCE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COUNSELING CORPORATION - CONSULTANT/SPECIALIST (the URL is way too long to list here.)
In the resume his description of his duties for Wyoming Valley Childrens Services seems to conflict in time and nature with his statement in his lawsuit against the same agency for firing him. (differences in duration, title, part time vs full time?) He lists working almost simultaneously for several clients as if they were all full time jobs.


Seasock's resume is online (a doc) if you Google it. I can't link to it however.

It is not uncommon to hold several part time positions and list them as such.

A lot of what he did is not relevant to identifying sexual predators. He had been a "Certified Sexual Assault Counselor," but that expired almost a decade before (8/89). He'd only published twice, both on adolescent sex offenders. I don't think he had a Ph D at the time.

It is important to remember that in the 1998 incident, no one alleged a sexual assault, including the victim. Sandusky is not charged with that.

I'm really wondering if Gricar was aware of the statute, it was only 5-6 months old at the time.

pittsburghgirl
03-23-2012, 06:59 PM
Gricar should have been looking at the police report; the police are not in a position to say, "We're not going to show it to you." It is also clear that there was contact between Schreffler and the DA's Office and that it was not by RFG in the normal way.

And he didn't determine the came was false, only that something that nobody claimed happened did not happen. He could have said that Sandusky didn't rob the victim. Nobody has claimed Sandusky did rob him.

The person who talked to, and I believe hired, the prosecution expert witnesses was either the DA or the ADA handling the case. There was no ADA handling this case.

Oh, please. 1998, Sandusky admitted the act in front of three witnesses, there is a known victim, and, in 1998, there was another witness.

In 2002, no admission, no known victim, a witness, and some questions about what that witness could have seen.

Look at the (bad, legally) arguments Amendola is making to try to get the 1998 witness statements out.

I'm not a lawyer, and thus can't determine whether Amendola is doing a good job. ( I thought Casey Anthony would be sent to prison for life...). It looks to me like Amendola is doing what all defense attorneys do.

We disagree about 1998 and 2002. A witness to rape pretty much does it for me. Most criminals don't confess to major felonies without a deal on the table. That is why we have trials. And whatever Sandusky said during the sting could well be ruled inadmissible, even if it were a confession, which if it is, falls far short of "I am a pedophile who touched your child for my own gratification." People can twist words around to mean many things. I put my faith in a guy who saw a rape and reported it to his beloved coach and his dad, even though that had to be a uncomfortable experience.

We have no idea what RG said or did at this point, or what was in the file he saw. An investigator can easily withhold things and some do (see the Adam Walsh investigation or the Jennifer Kesse case where the initial investigators kept nothing). Some of what we all want to know may be revealed in the trial and I will bet that RG comes out looking better than the PSU investigators.

pittsburghgirl
03-23-2012, 07:18 PM
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/the_second_mile_under_investig.html

Seventh investigation to open up: U.S. Postal Service investigating Second Mile.

Reader
03-23-2012, 10:14 PM
Amendola takes issue with PSU ‘victims’ reference

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/23/3136751/amendola-takes-issue-with-psu.html#storylink=cpy

Jerry Sandusky’s attorney said he is concerned when Penn State refers to those who say the former football coach abused them as “Sandusky’s victims,” when a trial hasn’t yet taken place.

“He still has not been tried,” said Joe Amendola. “The law says he’s presumed to be innocent, and yet we have these groups continuously coming up and saying they want to support the victims of Jerry Sandusky’s abuse. It’s very, very troubling.”

Amendola said Thursday that the references could make finding a fair jury even harder.

More at link.....

ThoughtFox
03-23-2012, 10:52 PM
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/the_second_mile_under_investig.html

Seventh investigation to open up: U.S. Postal Service investigating Second Mile.

I may not be a good person, but this made me smile in a gloating way. I really want them to get Second Mile for whatever they can!

"Postal inspectors have authority over more than 200 federal laws that affect mail-related crime.

Among those are child exploitation, related to the distribution of pornography and other crimes related to kids; extortion, when demands for ransom or threats of blackmail are sent through the mail; mail fraud; counterfeit stamps; and money laundering."

"All of the above" might be the right category. :jail::jail::jail:

ETA: For instance, how many times did Dear Old Jerry use his Second Mile letterhead and envelopes to either (a) write encouraging letters to victims so they wouldn't tell or (b) threaten the victims so they wouldn't tell or (c) send money after their parents got a little nervous about the relationship. This assumes that the victim list we have is only a small percentage of the iceberg.

J. J. in Phila
03-24-2012, 08:32 AM
I'm not a lawyer, and thus can't determine whether Amendola is doing a good job. ( I thought Casey Anthony would be sent to prison for life...). It looks to me like Amendola is doing what all defense attorneys do.

We disagree about 1998 and 2002. A witness to rape pretty much does it for me. Most criminals don't confess to major felonies without a deal on the table. That is why we have trials. And whatever Sandusky said during the sting could well be ruled inadmissible, even if it were a confession, which if it is, falls far short of "I am a pedophile who touched your child for my own gratification." People can twist words around to mean many things. I put my faith in a guy who saw a rape and reported it to his beloved coach and his dad, even though that had to be a uncomfortable experience.


Well, first of all, it is one witness to a rape, and no corroborating evidence, like the victim. If Amendola has the "victim," who says no rape occurred, that ends it. If a jury thinks McQueary is either mistaken or not honest, that ends it as well. Amendola claimed the first. We'll see if he's bluffing.

Second, in 1998, we have a victim, and we have three people, including two police officers, to Sandusky's admission. You don't need to prove gratification the felonies and 6 of the 7 misdemeanors. Miranda is not applicable because Sandusky was not under arrest and didn't know the police were there.

The crime here isn't the issue, it is which case is easier to prove. 3 witnesses to an admission, plus a victim, versus one witness and no victim.


We have no idea what RG said or did at this point, or what was in the file he saw. An investigator can easily withhold things and some do (see the Adam Walsh investigation or the Jennifer Kesse case where the initial investigators kept nothing). Some of what we all want to know may be revealed in the trial and I will bet that RG comes out looking better than the PSU investigators.

Any district attorney (or ADA) would not be relying on the police to provide expert witnesses, and RFG didn't, and would be talking to the witnesses directly in any case he was prosecuting, unless he had decided not to prosecute the case. If RFG didn't, that would be a colossal lapse of judgment.

J. J. in Phila
03-24-2012, 08:48 AM
Postal inspector is investigating Second Mile: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/the_second_mile_under_investig.html

waltzingmatilda
03-24-2012, 11:39 AM
Not sure if this has been posted...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/

Sandusky labeled 'likely pedophile' in 1998 report

Psychologist warned university police, but they weren't able to prove abuse of boy

pinktoes
03-24-2012, 12:07 PM
Not sure if this has been posted...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/

Sandusky labeled 'likely pedophile' in 1998 report

Psychologist warned university police, but they weren't able to prove abuse of boy

OMG! NBC has the entire police file!

"NBC News has obtained the complete file on the investigation – the police report and assessments by two psychologists who interviewed the boys -- which provides new details about Sandusky’s behavior. It also could raise fresh questions about how school and local authorities handled his case."
(same link as you gave)

InTheGarden
03-24-2012, 12:27 PM
From Chambers' report:
Chambers described in her written report how Sandusky had coaxed the boy into the shower after a workout, telling him, “All the guys do.” He then moved closer to him, squeezing him tightly from behind while they were both naked. The boy also told Chambers how, during their workout, Sandusky had kissed him on the forehead and told him, ‘I love you.” He also invited the boy back to his house to “sit on his lap” and go “online” on his “cool computer,...”

This gets sicker by the day. The police knew, Second Mile knew, Penn State knew and no one stopped it.

There is no way that Sandusky's family did not know about Sandusky's behavior, either. The ex-daughter-in-law knew, they all knew. She fought to keep her children away from Sandusky because she knew he was a pervert.

I am going to have to stop reading about this until the trial starts. This is not good for my mental health. I can't imagine the pain and suffering the victims went through.

Sandusky is one vile man. I only hope he and the people/institutions pay for this and pay hard.

Rlaub44
03-24-2012, 12:29 PM
Not sure if this has been posted...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/

Sandusky labeled 'likely pedophile' in 1998 report

Psychologist warned university police, but they weren't able to prove abuse of boy

In reading this article, it is clear that the psychologist contacted by the mother is the one who reported the 1998 case to ChildLine, which is the agency for whom Jerry Lauro conducted the investigation.

So while he now claims he didn't see the report she prepared for University police, he obviously would have been privy to all of the details she placed in her initial report to his own agency. His recent statements of how he would have handled things differently are ringing a little more hollow to me in light of this. Also, I have dealt with Children and Youth Services numerous times in my professional capacity, and they have never relied on police to determine whether a report is considered "unfounded", "indicated", or "founded". If Lauro had pursued his investigation independently and determined the report was founded, that would have been enough to end Sandusky's association with Second Mile children 4 years before the 2002 incident even occurred.

I am now even more disgusted by the inaction of Gary Schultz, who admitted being aware that there was a 1998 report when McQueary reported the 2002 incident to him. He had access to the information that Sandusky was labeled a "likely pedophile" in '98, and still shirked his responsibility as a mandated reporter. Even if, as he claimed, he never read the '98 police report, why would he not have gone back to it 4 years later when that name came up again?

Then there's Chief Harmon, Sandusky's former neighbor, who was reportedly the one who instructed Schreffler to drop the case, even with this report included. Did he just assume his genial old neighbor couldn't really be a bad guy, or did he fairly review the evidence and make the decision independent of who the alleged perpetrator was?

Seasock had no business making a report for Centre County CYS, as they were so deeply connected with Sandusky and the Second Mile that there was no way for them to be impartial. If it was felt that a second psychological opinion was needed, it should have been arranged by Lauro's office or by Gricar's office, not by the county agency that placed foster children with the subject of the investigation and, I believe, also referred families to the agency Sandusky had founded.

I'm sure Governor Corbett will be releasing a statement soon on how all of these folks should have done more also; he wouldn't just continue to single out Paterno, would he?

waltzingmatilda
03-24-2012, 12:44 PM
i couldn't wait to read all of you smart folks' comments on this. I was shocked to learn that Sandusky was reported to CYS by Chambers in 1998 and all these other people knew of the allegations. I wonder how JP could NOT have known about this investigation focused on his asst coach?MOO

wm

waltzingmatilda
03-24-2012, 12:55 PM
Chambers report.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Chambers_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

Tipstaff
03-24-2012, 05:35 PM
i couldn't wait to read all of you smart folks' comments on this. I was shocked to learn that Sandusky was reported to CYS by Chambers in 1998 and all these other people knew of the allegations. I wonder how JP could NOT have known about this investigation focused on his asst coach?MOO

wm

JP knew!

ThoughtFox
03-24-2012, 05:40 PM
I just saw another article on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/jerry-sandusky-psychologist-likely-pedophile_n_1377156.html

This quote from Chambers the psychologist is just astonishing:

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 typical pedophile "overture."

Tipstaff
03-24-2012, 05:46 PM
I just saw another article on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/jerry-sandusky-psychologist-likely-pedophile_n_1377156.html

This quote from Chambers the psychologist is just astonishing:

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 typical pedophile "overture."


Makes you wonder just how many people looked the other way and let Sandusky continue raping and sexually assulting boys?

azwriter
03-24-2012, 07:31 PM
Amendola takes issue with PSU ‘victims’ reference

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/23/3136751/amendola-takes-issue-with-psu.html#storylink=cpy

Jerry Sandusky’s attorney said he is concerned when Penn State refers to those who say the former football coach abused them as “Sandusky’s victims,” when a trial hasn’t yet taken place.

“He still has not been tried,” said Joe Amendola. “The law says he’s presumed to be innocent, and yet we have these groups continuously coming up and saying they want to support the victims of Jerry Sandusky’s abuse. It’s very, very troubling.”

Amendola said Thursday that the references could make finding a fair jury even harder.

More at link.....

Thanks Reader for posting this. But you and I know this is the usual Yada, Yada, Yada, we hear from a defense attorney - the concern about finding a jury that hasn't formed an opinion. And yet, our system works; a jury is always seated.

Okay, the law looks upon Jerry as "innocent" before he is convicted. But that law isn't what's on a person's mind when they mull over the charges and speak out about the defendant. Jerry Sandusky appears to be a monster in the eyes of many. And, those people have a right to their feelings and opinions pre-trial and after the justice system runs its course.

I assume you all know that I was raised in the same hometown as Jerry and we graduated in the same class from the same high school. I knew him back then and into his early years as a Penn State coach but the more I hear the more I am shocked and he appears very guilty to me. And, I'm not about to go around and say to people "Well, he is innocent now so let's give him the benefit or doubt." This is all way too shocking for me to consider otherwise.

azwriter
03-24-2012, 07:46 PM
Makes you wonder just how many people looked the other way and let Sandusky continue raping and sexually assulting boys?

That's an excellent question Tipstaff. But I have an additional question I hope will be answered or uncovered during the investigation or the trial. My question is:
Why? Just why did those who were in the know look the other way and allow Jerry to continue?

IMO this is the question where the answer could lead to the downfall of the University, its athletic department, Board of directors and others in a positon of authority.

Why, why why runs through my mind continually.

JMO

willow
03-24-2012, 08:09 PM
These are the reasons: Money, Greed, Appearance, And the BIGGEST ONE- Not My Kid. They cared so little for the kids involved, it's frightening.

I believe they (the kids) were a commodity to them. There's always more where they come from. Ugh. I can't stand it. It really, really angers me.

:maddening:

J. J. in Phila
03-24-2012, 08:20 PM
Seasock had no business making a report for Centre County CYS, as they were so deeply connected with Sandusky and the Second Mile that there was no way for them to be impartial. If it was felt that a second psychological opinion was needed, it should have been arranged by Lauro's office or by Gricar's office, not by the county agency that placed foster children with the subject of the investigation and, I believe, also referred families to the agency Sandusky had founded.


Seasock himself said that he didn't deal with adult pedophiles, and that Sandusky might be one.

This is damning.

J. J. in Phila
03-24-2012, 09:02 PM
I couldn't find Dr. Chambers bio, but she has her Ph D from Penn State in 1986 and was a clinical psychologist. In that respect, in 1998, she was substantially more experienced than then Mr. Seasock.

Arnold initially handled the report, and I believe her when she said that Gricar took it. I bluntly do not believe that any District Attorney in the state would not be in contact with the victim's mother and would know that she contacted the psychologist. I further find it inconceivable that any District Attorney's Office in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would not receive full and complete copies of police reports.

Reader
03-24-2012, 09:04 PM
Thanks Reader for posting this. But you and I know this is the usual Yada, Yada, Yada, we hear from a defense attorney - the concern about finding a jury that hasn't formed an opinion. And yet, our system works; a jury is always seated.

Okay, the law looks upon Jerry as "innocent" before he is convicted. But that law isn't what's on a person's mind when they mull over the charges and speak out about the defendant. Jerry Sandusky appears to be a monster in the eyes of many. And, those people have a right to their feelings and opinions pre-trial and after the justice system runs its course.

I assume you all know that I was raised in the same hometown as Jerry and we graduated in the same class from the same high school. I knew him back then and into his early years as a Penn State coach but the more I hear the more I am shocked and he appears very guilty to me. And, I'm not about to go around and say to people "Well, he is innocent now so let's give him the benefit or doubt." This is all way too shocking for me to consider otherwise.


I agree with you and certainly did not mean Amendola's complaint should apply to us here or anywhere where people are discussing and expressing their opinions about JS. That is for the courts and choosing the jury. Here we are allowed, as far as I understand, to discuss and give our opinions on his actions, guilt or innocence, and the actions of others involved.

Just think it's a good idea to keep on eye on what Amendola is saying and doing. This statement of his makes me think he's already looking forward to an appeal....

J. J. in Phila
03-24-2012, 09:58 PM
I agree with you and certainly did not mean Amendola's complaint should apply to us here or anywhere where people are discussing and expressing their opinions about JS. That is for the courts and choosing the jury. Here we are allowed, as far as I understand, to discuss and give our opinions on his actions, guilt or innocence, and the actions of others involved.

Just think it's a good idea to keep on eye on what Amendola is saying and doing. This statement of his makes me think he's already looking forward to an appeal....

He can't appeal, successfully, on the change of venue issue, because he wanted it in Centre County.

Look, I've said very clearly that I don't Sandusky will be found guilty of some of the charges. I still have to have some way to refer to these alleged victims. They are referred to as "Victim __." That, for me, doesn't mean that "Victim __" was an actual victim, only a means of identifying him.

ThoughtFox
03-24-2012, 11:49 PM
That's an excellent question Tipstaff. But I have an additional question I hope will be answered or uncovered during the investigation or the trial. My question is:
Why? Just why did those who were in the know look the other way and allow Jerry to continue?

IMO this is the question where the answer could lead to the downfall of the University, its athletic department, Board of directors and others in a positon of authority.

Why, why why runs through my mind continually.

JMO

Very good questions! Your mind can run wild with speculation.

He had access to lots of money, and those guys at Penn State had made business deals connected to Second Mile.

They knew things about him, yes, but he also knew things about them. I think that's the key to this cover-up. What he knew is for investigators to uncover.

Also Sandusky was lucky to be working with men who apparently had no conscience about the abuse of children. I consider that just a lucky break for him. Their indifference helped him get away with it. And yes, I do include Paterno in that - he had to know about the 1998 incident.

J. J. in Phila
03-25-2012, 12:05 AM
Also Sandusky was lucky to be working with men who apparently had no conscience about the abuse of children. I consider that just a lucky break for him. Their indifference helped him get away with it. And yes, I do include Paterno in that - he had to know about the 1998 incident.

I don't see any information that would lead to the conclusion that Paterno knew. The report was kept in police channels and Harmon said he never told Curley.

Within the university, Schultz knew, but he never saw the reports.

waltzingmatilda
03-25-2012, 01:36 AM
Here's the 1998 police report on JS.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf

Report of expert who concluded no abuse occured.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 11:22 AM
The Centre Daily Times has compiled a timeline of the 1998 investigation - gives a helpful look at who was involved at the time and how it curiously led to no charges or CYS findings of abuse.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/25/3139115/timeline-of-1998-investigation.html

J. J. in Phila
03-25-2012, 11:27 AM
Here's the 1998 police report on JS.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf

Report of expert who concluded no abuse occured.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

Thank you. I had neglected to bookmark that.

The were two things in the Seasock report that I've found troubling:

A. He claimed that that it was not unknown for coaches to shower with players. That might be true, but I know of no cases where coaches bear hug players.

One case, which came out over the summer involved players touching, nonsexually, other players at the high school team did engage in what could be called "hazing." The DA brought charges.

http://www.abc27.com/story/16034569/teens-charged-in-hazing-incident-at-football-camp?clienttype=printable

B. He claimed that there was another coach present (it wouldn't be McQueary) in the facility and shower room. Nothing in either interview suggests that there was anyone else in the shower room.

I've seen enough sexual assaults to know that they do occur in far more public places than a shower room. These include rapes of adults and of children.

pittsburghgirl
03-25-2012, 12:14 PM
I couldn't find Dr. Chambers bio, but she has her Ph D from Penn State in 1986 and was a clinical psychologist. In that respect, in 1998, she was substantially more experienced than then Mr. Seasock.

Arnold initially handled the report, and I believe her when she said that Gricar took it. I bluntly do not believe that any District Attorney in the state would not be in contact with the victim's mother and would know that she contacted the psychologist. I further find it inconceivable that any District Attorney's Office in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would not receive full and complete copies of police reports.

Unless the police are covering up for the criminal. The police report makes no mention of either JKA or RG saying to police "close the case." Dragging this back to poor missing RG simply takes the focus off Sandusky, Second Mile, and PSU. I look at all of the 1998 case in light of 2002, where we find Schultz and Curley clearly lying and covering up. All Schultz had to do after hearing of the 2002 rape was read the file from 1998. And then arrest Sandusky.

Once we see what went on in 1998, it isn't hard to think about someone from PSU deciding to close the case in 1998. If Schultz lied to a Grand Jury and the AG in 2011, and Lauro got stonewalled in 1998 (that there was "nothing to it") what's hard to believe about RG or JKA getting only part of the story? If Schreffler notes calling or talking to JKA and RG, why wouldn't he note if someone from the DA's office told him to close the case--rather than just noting that the investigators talked to Sandusky, case closed? If RG or JKA or any DA was told, as Lauro said he was told by Schreffler, "there's nothing to it," then there could be no prosecution. District attorneys are not supposed to target people for investigation, absent information from police that a crime occurred. I find the ending of the 1998 police report to be odd, curious, and suggestive that someone above Schreffler pulled the plug.

RG may just be another victim of the cover-up, a conveniently missing person to blame--even though there is no evidence he was told about 2000 or an actual rape in 2002] or the other things Sandusky got up to between 2002-2005. The police report points in two directions--PSU and Second Mile. It may even point away from Paterno, if we learn no one from PSU police ever interviewed him or the rest of the football staff in 1998.

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 12:21 PM
Thank you. I had neglected to bookmark that.

The were two things in the Seasock report that I've found troubling:

A. He claimed that that it was not unknown for coaches to shower with players. That might be true, but I know of no cases where coaches bear hug players.

One case, which came out over the summer involved players touching, nonsexually, other players at the high school team did engage in what could be called "hazing." The DA brought charges.

http://www.abc27.com/story/16034569/teens-charged-in-hazing-incident-at-football-camp?clienttype=printable

B. He claimed that there was another coach present (it wouldn't be McQueary) in the facility and shower room. Nothing in either interview suggests that there was anyone else in the shower room.

I've seen enough sexual assaults to know that they do occur in far more public places than a shower room. These include rapes of adults and of children.

I was also troubled by two consecutive paragraphs, where he explained that Sandusky's behavior (showering with the boy) was consistent with his history as a coach, and in the next paragraph, stated that the physical contact between them was not consistent with the common pattern for sexual offenders.

So in linking these paragraphs, does Seasock actually believe that this physical contact is then consistent with "the expected daily routine of being a football coach?" When he asked the coaches that he contacted about showering with young boys, I wonder if he asked them about tickling, naked bear hugs, and lifting a naked child against the coach's own unclothed body? I'm guessing he wouldn't have found many coaches who agreed that this was "normal" and "healthy."

I am also guessing Mr. Seasock was not an athlete during his high school career; or if he was and views this as the norm, it raises some strong concerns about his own history with older male coaches.

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 12:28 PM
Unless the police are covering up for the criminal.The police report makes no mention of either JKA or RG saying to police "close the case." Dragging this back to poor missing RG simply takes the focus off Sandusky, Second Mile, and PSU. I look at all of the 1998 case in light of 2002, where we find Schultz and Curley clearly lying and covering up. All Schultz had to do after hearing of the 2002 rape was read the file from 1998. And then arrest Sandusky.

Once we see what went on in 1998, it isn't hard to think about someone from PSU deciding to close the case in 1998. If Schultz lied to a Grand Jury and the AG in 2011, and Lauro got stonewalled in 1998 (that there was "nothing to it") what's hard to believe about RG or JKA getting only part of the story? If Schreffler notes calling or talking to JKA and RG, why wouldn't he note if someone from the DA's office told him to close the case--rather than just noting that the investigators talked to Sandusky, case closed? If RG or JKA or any DA was told, as Lauro said he was told by Schreffler, "there's nothing to it," then there could be no prosecution. District attorneys are not supposed to targer people for investigation, absent information from police that a crime occurred. I find the ending of the 1998 police report to be odd, curious, and suggestive that someone above Schreffler pulled the plug.

RG may just be another victim of the cover-up, a conveniently missing person to blame--even though there is no evidence he was told about 2000 or an actual rape in 2002] or the other things Sandusky gotmup to between 2002-2005. the police report points in two directions--PSU and Second Mile. It may even point away from Paterno, if we learn no one from PSU police ever interviewed him or the rest of the football staff in 1998.

Bolded by me:

And from what we are reading about the thoroughness of the investigation, nothing leads me to believe police did interview anyone else from the football staff. Being that this investigation was revolving around Sandusky's interaction as a Second Mile staff member, have we even read that police or DPW interviewed other Second Mile administrators at the time of the 1998 incident? I don't recall reading it if they did.

pittsburghgirl
03-25-2012, 12:42 PM
Bolded by me:

And from what we are reading about the thoroughness of the investigation, nothing leads me to believe police did interview anyone else from the football staff. Being that this investigation was revolving around Sandusky's interaction as a Second Mile staff member, have we even read that police or DPW interviewed other Second Mile administrators at the time of the 1998 incident? I don't recall reading it if they did.

That's what I want to know--who did PSU police talk to? How many staffers at Second Mile? Or football coaches and staff at PSU? How many kids at Second Mile? How extensive was the investigation?

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 12:45 PM
Unless the police are covering up for the criminal. The police report makes no mention of either JKA or RG saying to police "close the case." Dragging this back to poor missing RG simply takes the focus off Sandusky, Second Mile, and PSU. I look at all of the 1998 case in light of 2002, where we find Schultz and Curley clearly lying and covering up. All Schultz had to do after hearing of the 2002 rape was read the file from 1998. And then arrest Sandusky.

Once we see what went on in 1998, it isn't hard to think about someone from PSU deciding to close the case in 1998. If Schultz lied to a Grand Jury and the AG in 2011, and Lauro got stonewalled in 1998 (that there was "nothing to it") what's hard to believe about RG or JKA getting only part of the story? If Schreffler notes calling or talking to JKA and RG, why wouldn't he note if someone from the DA's office told him to close the case--rather than just noting that the investigators talked to Sandusky, case closed? If RG or JKA or any DA was told, as Lauro said he was told by Schreffler, "there's nothing to it," then there could be no prosecution. District attorneys are not supposed to targer people for investigation, absent information from police that a crime occurred. I find the ending of the 1998 police report to be odd, curious, and suggestive that someone above Schreffler pulled the plug.

RG may just be another victim of the cover-up, a conveniently missing person to blame--even though there is no evidence he was told about 2000 or an actual rape in 2002] or the other things Sandusky gotmup to between 2002-2005. the police report points in two directions--PSU and Second Mile. It may even point away from Paterno, if we learn no one from PSU police ever interviewed him or the rest of the football staff in 1998.

Again, bolded by me:

Earlier references suggest that that somebody could have been Chief Harmon. Read Schreffler's quote from a December article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

At the time, Mr. Gricar spoke to Mr. Schreffler's police chief, Tom Harmon, and that was it.
"'Gricar said there wasn't enough to charge, and he said to close the case,'" Mr. Schreffler recounted.
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm

It makes it sound as if Schreffler didn't claim to hear it first hand from RFG; but instead was told by Harmon that he (Harmon) had heard from Gricar and was told to close it. I don't think we have any independent confirmation that such a conversation between Gricar and Sandusky's former neighbor Harmon ever occurred.

Might Chief Harmon have been the one who made the decision that the case should be closed? I'm not making any allegations; simply raising a possibility.

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 12:55 PM
That's what I want to know--who did PSU police talk to? How many staffers at Second Mile? Or football coaches and staff at PSU? How many kids at Second Mile? How extensive was the investigation?

My suspicion is that the police report that was linked earlier is a complete account. They interviewed the boy, his mother, Seasock, and Sandusky, and reviewed Chambers' report.

Nowhere in the police report does it suggest any further interviews of PSU or Second Mile staff, and nothing I have read elsewhere indicates that there were any additional interviews in the 1998 case besides those already documented in Schreffler's report. There are attachments that we haven't seen, but I doubt they are to interviews that aren't linked to a reference in the main body of the report.

pittsburghgirl
03-25-2012, 01:48 PM
RLaub44, you've made several good observations. If Harmon decided to close the case, that would explain why Schreffler says that Gricar was the one, but that leaves open a number of possibilities--that Harmon initiated the closing of the case and used Gricar as an excuse and never talked to him; that Harmon and RG did talk but RG didn't have all the information because he didn't talk to Schreffler; that J Karen Arnold and RG were told different things by different people--or a combination of the above.

Harmon's involvement would explain why the case closed so suddenly with no attempt to reconcile the conflicting psych reports and no mention of who made the decision. It doesn't explain Lauro's contention that Schreffler said there was nothing to it, if Lauro is recalling correctly. But Schreffler could also have been repeating the department line on the case. i think it's telling that the 2002 case doesn't even involve the DA's office; somebody may have learned that having people outside PSU involved creates huge risk.

InTheGarden
03-25-2012, 02:14 PM
In reading this article, it is clear that the psychologist contacted by the mother is the one who reported the 1998 case to ChildLine, which is the agency for whom Jerry Lauro conducted the investigation.

snip

I am now even more disgusted by the inaction of Gary Schultz, who admitted being aware that there was a 1998 report when McQueary reported the 2002 incident to him. He had access to the information that Sandusky was labeled a "likely pedophile" in '98, and still shirked his responsibility as a mandated reporter. Even if, as he claimed, he never read the '98 police report, why would he not have gone back to it 4 years later when that name came up again?

snip

Let's not forget what Penn State did for Schultz when he retired:
Gary Schultz spent more than 40 years at Penn State University, so the school honored him by putting his name on a child care center that opened in September.

Read more: PSU finance man Gary Schultz praised for 40 'distinguished' years - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_765876.html#ixzz1q9Vf8XFT

Penn State names a child care center after the man in charge of their police department who protected a likely pedophile. Am I missing something here?

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 02:36 PM
Let's not forget what Penn State did for Schultz when he retired:
Gary Schultz spent more than 40 years at Penn State University, so the school honored him by putting his name on a child care center that opened in September.

Read more: PSU finance man Gary Schultz praised for 40 'distinguished' years - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_765876.html#ixzz1q9Vf8XFT

Penn State names a child care center after the man in charge of their police department who protected a likely pedophile. Am I missing something here?

The irony is incredible. The Gary Schultz Child Care Center was dedicated on September 23, 2011, about 6 weeks before the general public learned of the allegations against Sandusky, but well after the center's namesake testified before the grand jury, and the board and Spanier would have been well aware of his role in failing to report the allegations. Could the BOT and administration really have failed to foresee what a horrible idea this would be? Or had they convinced themselves that nothing was going to result from the grand jury?

BigCat
03-25-2012, 03:05 PM
In reading this article, it is clear that the psychologist contacted by the mother is the one who reported the 1998 case to ChildLine, which is the agency for whom Jerry Lauro conducted the investigation.

So while he now claims he didn't see the report she prepared for University police, he obviously would have been privy to all of the details she placed in her initial report to his own agency. His recent statements of how he would have handled things differently are ringing a little more hollow to me in light of this. Also, I have dealt with Children and Youth Services numerous times in my professional capacity, and they have never relied on police to determine whether a report is considered "unfounded", "indicated", or "founded". If Lauro had pursued his investigation independently and determined the report was founded, that would have been enough to end Sandusky's association with Second Mile children 4 years before the 2002 incident even occurred.

I am now even more disgusted by the inaction of Gary Schultz, who admitted being aware that there was a 1998 report when McQueary reported the 2002 incident to him. He had access to the information that Sandusky was labeled a "likely pedophile" in '98, and still shirked his responsibility as a mandated reporter. Even if, as he claimed, he never read the '98 police report, why would he not have gone back to it 4 years later when that name came up again?

Then there's Chief Harmon, Sandusky's former neighbor, who was reportedly the one who instructed Schreffler to drop the case, even with this report included. Did he just assume his genial old neighbor couldn't really be a bad guy, or did he fairly review the evidence and make the decision independent of who the alleged perpetrator was?

Seasock had no business making a report for Centre County CYS, as they were so deeply connected with Sandusky and the Second Mile that there was no way for them to be impartial. If it was felt that a second psychological opinion was needed, it should have been arranged by Lauro's office or by Gricar's office, not by the county agency that placed foster children with the subject of the investigation and, I believe, also referred families to the agency Sandusky had founded.

I'm sure Governor Corbett will be releasing a statement soon on how all of these folks should have done more also; he wouldn't just continue to single out Paterno, would he?

I knew you would find a way to bring it back to "poor JoePa is a victim." :clap:

Tipstaff
03-25-2012, 03:59 PM
From the Grand Jury Finds of Fact

"Victim 4 Remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State which preceded Sandusky's retirement. Sandusky told Victim 4 not to tell anyone about the meeting. The meeting occurred in May, 1999."


Victim 4 was a Second Mile Participant - Victim 4 would frequently stay overnight at Toftrees with Sandusky and the football team prior to home games - Sandusky's wife was never present at Toftrees. Per the findings.


Victim 4 would attend the pre-game banquet and sit with Sandusky at the coaches table.


So Joe Paterno give JS the bad news in 1999 after the 1998 incident - then Sandusky continues his behavior for the next 12 years and everybody wishes they had done more or claims they didn't know.

The good thing about a trial is that the vile and disgusting details will be public again and there will be names and faces and lives examined. The Victims of Jerry Sandusky will have their day in court and the people who looked the other way will be publicly outed and this includes the great and powerful OZ aka Joe Paterno and all.

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 04:23 PM
I knew you would find a way to bring it back to "poor JoePa is a victim." :clap:

And where did I say that? I, like many others, want the responsible parties to be held accountable. My beloved Governor went out of his way again recently to bash the dead guy, without a word toward Curley, Schultz, Spanier, the police agencies, DPW, or for that matter, Sandusky himself.

While Paterno could have done more, he did more correctly in this situation than any of the names I listed above. NOWHERE did I call JoePa a victim, and I resent the insinuation.

ThoughtFox
03-25-2012, 04:23 PM
From the Grand Jury Finds of Fact

"Victim 4 Remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State which preceded Sandusky's retirement. Sandusky told Victim 4 not to tell anyone about the meeting. The meeting occurred in May, 1999."

Victim 4 was a Second Mile Participant - Victim 4 would frequently stay overnight at Toftrees with Sandusky and the football team prior to home games - Sandusky's wife was never present at Toftrees. Per the findings.

Victim 4 would attend the pre-game banquet and sit with Sandusky at the coaches table.

So Joe Paterno give JS the bad news in 1999 after the 1998 incident - then Sandusky continues his behavior for the next 12 years and everybody wishes they had done more or claims they didn't know.

The good thing about a trial is that the vile and disgusting details will be public again and there will be names and faces and lives examined. The Victims of Jerry Sandusky will have their day in court and the people who looked the other way will be publicly outed and this includes the great and powerful OZ aka Joe Paterno and all.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating a point that I think some are missing here. You can't "unknow" or "conveniently forget" that someone is a child molester, especially when you see them out and about with children all the time.

And we aren't talking about people who did this 100 years ago, but in modern times, with modern awareness campaigns and with television full of stories both real and fictional.

And while Paterno clearly had no "legal" ability to crack down on Sandusky, he knew what he was and ignored it. The good old innocent bystander defense.

But Paterno is really the lucky one. He is departed, and it's only his family and the school that have to bear the brunt of the trial. They have to shoulder the legacy of do-nothingness and indifference that he left behind.

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 04:51 PM
From the Grand Jury Finds of Fact

"Victim 4 Remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State which preceded Sandusky's retirement. Sandusky told Victim 4 not to tell anyone about the meeting. The meeting occurred in May, 1999."


Victim 4 was a Second Mile Participant - Victim 4 would frequently stay overnight at Toftrees with Sandusky and the football team prior to home games - Sandusky's wife was never present at Toftrees. Per the findings.


Victim 4 would attend the pre-game banquet and sit with Sandusky at the coaches table.


So Joe Paterno give JS the bad news in 1999 after the 1998 incident - then Sandusky continues his behavior for the next 12 years and everybody wishes they had done more or claims they didn't know.

The good thing about a trial is that the vile and disgusting details will be public again and there will be names and faces and lives examined. The Victims of Jerry Sandusky will have their day in court and the people who looked the other way will be publicly outed and this includes the great and powerful OZ aka Joe Paterno and all.

And if, after the trial, no proof emerges that Paterno knew any details about the 1998 incident, I hope we can continue to focus on those people who have already been proven to have had the knowledge and power to have stopped Sandusky, including University police, PSU administration, District Attorneys, and the Department of Public Welfare; all of whom had more actual power than any college football coach, even ones that get tagged with condescending nicknames.

ThoughtFox
03-25-2012, 05:10 PM
And if, after the trial, no proof emerges that Paterno knew any details about the 1998 incident, I hope we can continue to focus on those people who have already been proven to have had the knowledge and power to have stopped Sandusky, including University police, PSU administration, District Attorneys, and the Department of Public Welfare; all of whom had more actual power than any college football coach, even ones that get tagged with condescending nicknames.

I agree that there is plenty of blame to spread around, but we can't really pretend at this point that Paterno was just an ordinary coach going about ordinary business all the time.

When all of this started, many fans reacted as if Paterno was completely untouchable just because of his fame and revered position at the university.

And now we are supposed to believe he was always an old decrepit bureaucrat who didn't even know what his coaches were doing, and if he did he had no control over them?

I guess I just can't suspend belief and accept that a man who was synonymous with Penn State football wouldn't be informed about possible legal troubles with one of his staff members back in 1998. And there's the point that many have made - he didn't name Jerry his successor in 1999 - why not? To me the logical answer is that he knew about the kid in 1998.

But that could still be a coincidence, if you believe in coincidences.

On the other hand, Paterno just may not have believed the kid's story in 98. That still doesn't explain why he didn't act more aggressively when more victims came forth. And I think even more stuff is going to come out about what Paterno knew and when he knew it. I don't think it's going to be all that easy to separate him from the rest of the university and Second Mile crowd.

Jerry and Coach, 1999
Via Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/jerry-sandusky-issues-statement-on-joe-paterno-s-death-1.3471102)
http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.3471116.1327268430!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 05:28 PM
I agree that there is plenty of blame to spread around, but we can't really pretend at this point that Paterno was just an ordinary coach going about ordinary business all the time.

When all of this started, many fans reacted as if Paterno was completely untouchable just because of his fame and revered position at the university.

And now we are supposed to believe he was always an old decrepit bureaucrat who didn't even know what his coaches were doing, and if he did he had no control over them?

I guess I just can't suspend belief and accept that a man who was synonymous with Penn State football wouldn't be informed about possible legal troubles with one of his staff members back in 1998. And there's the point that many have made - he didn't name Jerry his successor in 1999 - why not? To me the logical answer is that he knew about the kid in 1998.

But that could still be a coincidence, if you believe in coincidences.

On the other hand, Paterno just may not have believed the kid's story in 98. That still doesn't explain why he didn't act more aggressively when more victims came forth. And I think even more stuff is going to come out about what Paterno knew and when he knew it. I don't think it's going to be all that easy to separate him from the rest of the university and Second Mile crowd.

Jerry and Coach, 1999
Via Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/jerry-sandusky-issues-statement-on-joe-paterno-s-death-1.3471102)

http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.3471116.1327268430!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG


I guess I understand people's suspicions, but if you review some of the earlier posts today reviewing the police report from 98, nobody from the university or the Second Mile were interviewed. Because of the sensitive nature of child abuse investigations, nobody other than the referral source and legal authorities are allowed to know the outcome of the investigation.

Many people like to ascribe omniscience to Coach Paterno, but the only person at the University who has been shown to have known about 98 was Schultz, and he claimed not to have ever read the report.

If the only people interviewed were Sandusky, the victim, the victim's mother, and the psychologist from Centre Co. CYS, which of them would have alerted Paterno? If the University police had done it, it would have been an ethical breach, because remember, they determined there was "nothing to it."

Even if someone at Lasch had observed the investigators with Sandusky, he could have simply claimed they were investigating an abuse report against one of the Second Mile kids, conveniently not sharing that he himself were the alleged perpetrator.

Concerning naming a successor, Paterno didn't even do that at any time during his next 13 years up to his firing, despite everyone believing Bradley was the logical choice. Why name a successor when you intend to coach until your death?

And as far as the posed picture above, it doesn't undo the numerous reports from that time period that Sandusky and Paterno were not close, and certainly not friends. The belief that Paterno had to know what Sandusky did in his off hours is, so far, unfounded.

ThoughtFox
03-25-2012, 05:41 PM
RLaub44: Here's my answer - I don't believe Schultz.

He just doesn't want to admit that they knew about Jerry in 1998. :twocents:

In fact, I don't know why anything he says would be believable at this point.

Also, I've been around university faculties before and everyone knows everything about everyone. Even if LE told Shultz not to tell, and he pretends he saw nothing and knew nothing, he still would have told Paterno. I wish I could bet money on that - it's a sure bet. JMOO

Tipstaff
03-25-2012, 06:21 PM
And if, after the trial, no proof emerges that Paterno knew any details about the 1998 incident, I hope we can continue to focus on those people who have already been proven to have had the knowledge and power to have stopped Sandusky, including University police, PSU administration, District Attorneys, and the Department of Public Welfare; all of whom had more actual power than any college football coach, even ones that get tagged with condescending nicknames.

Paterno said "I wish I had done more".

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 08:59 PM
Paterno said "I wish I had done more".

Yes he did. With the benefit of hindsight. Unlike any of the other case players, who still insist they did everything they could, the person who fulfilled his legal obligation, as well as his obligation under the policies of his university, wished he had gone the extra mile (not the Second Mile, please).

I don't view that statement as an admission that he knew everything and chose to let it go; I think it is an "if I knew then what I know now" kind of regret.

I also think his statement referenced the '02 incident, not the '98 incident which people are suggesting he had to have known about.

Rlaub44
03-25-2012, 09:12 PM
RLaub44: Here's my answer - I don't believe Schultz.

He just doesn't want to admit that they knew about Jerry in 1998. :twocents:

In fact, I don't know why anything he says would be believable at this point.

Also, I've been around university faculties before and everyone knows everything about everyone. Even if LE told Shultz not to tell, and he pretends he saw nothing and knew nothing, he still would have told Paterno. I wish I could bet money on that - it's a sure bet. JMOO

Why? If the objective was to cover it up and sweep it under the rug, why tell Paterno? Was the message, "You better keep your man in line?" That would mean they assumed there was truth to what the investigators didn't believe.

Otherwise, was it along the lines of "Guess what they accused Jerry of? Showering with a kid and bear hugging him! How crazy, right?" I'm just not convinced either is likely, and all any of us can do until facts come out is to speculate.

J. J. in Phila
03-25-2012, 11:18 PM
RLaub44, you've made several good observations. If Harmon decided to close the case, that would explain why Schreffler says that Gricar was the one, but that leaves open a number of possibilities--that Harmon initiated the closing of the case and used Gricar as an excuse and never talked to him; that Harmon and RG did talk but RG didn't have all the information because he didn't talk to Schreffler; that J Karen Arnold and RG were told different things by different people--or a combination of the above.


Schreffler said he talked with both; it has been indicated that JKA "extensive disagreements" with Gricar over the case. JKA has also said, publicly, that she had the case for a bit. Now, bluntly, I believe her.

The DA's Office is always sent police reports. It is inconceivable that they would write it up, and not send it. They may not forward it to DPW.

A few things to remember and consider.

1. Only what Victim 6 said is admissible, as corroborating evidence. In both reports, Victim 6 told the same story, so that increases his credibility. The opinion that Sandusky was grooming Victim 6, or the opinion that he wasn't, are not admissible.

2. Sandusky admitted to in front of witnesses, so no one, in 1998, was denying it.

3. RFG was not known to put a lot of trust in psychologists, either in his personal or professional life. It would be likely that neither report would carry too much weight with him, except where it could be used as evidence.

J. J. in Phila
03-25-2012, 11:24 PM
Why? If the objective was to cover it up and sweep it under the rug, why tell Paterno? Was the message, "You better keep your man in line?" That would mean they assumed there was truth to what the investigators didn't believe.

Otherwise, was it along the lines of "Guess what they accused Jerry of? Showering with a kid and bear hugging him! How crazy, right?" I'm just not convinced either is likely, and all any of us can do until facts come out is to speculate.

I agree, regarding 1998. Harmon said that he didn't give Schultz the full details, because he didn't have the full details. Schreffler brought in the State College police and called the DA's Office. He obviously wasn't keeping it "in house."

All of these decision, in 1998, were being made in the Courthouse, not on campus.

StellarsJay
03-25-2012, 11:26 PM
From Chambers' report:
Mother had contact with a policeman's wife and so knew who to report to.
Would policemen's wives be very discrete? Or is this more to argue that lots of people must have thought JS was creepy?
And I'll give Seasock a point- of everyone who has written about "bear hug", he's the only one to get the kid's joke- it was a "bare" hug.

ThoughtFox
03-25-2012, 11:28 PM
I agree, regarding 1998. Harmon said that he didn't give Schultz the full details, because he didn't have the full details. Schreffler brought in the State College police and called the DA's Office. He obviously wasn't keeping it "in house."

All of these decision, in 1998, were being made in the Courthouse, not on campus.

So Harmon didn't have "full details"? Then what "details" did he have? Even sketchy details would be enough to raise questions, it seems to me.

And there was no possiblity of a leak at the Courthouse? That must be unlike every other courthouse in the United States.

There was no possibility of gossip on campus that might have gotten back to someone?

I'm not buying that, sorry. JMOO :cow:

ThoughtFox
03-25-2012, 11:31 PM
From Chambers' report:
Mother had contact with a policeman's wife and so knew who to report to.
Would policemen's wives be very discrete? Or is this more to argue that lots of people must have thought JS was creepy?

Exactly my point - we have to expect that there was also gossip going on. Other people saw things and I bet other people brought up Jerry with Paterno.

Heck, we don't even know exactly how many victims there are! For every one that has come forward, I would expect several to stay hush-hush.

I think it's obvious there is more to this than the "official story" of 1998.

J. J. in Phila
03-25-2012, 11:50 PM
So Harmon didn't have "full details"? Then what "details" did he have? Even sketchy details would be enough to raise questions, it seems to me.


That there was an investigation, but not the details. He could easily see that Sandusky was not arrested.


And there was no possiblity of a leak at the Courthouse? That must be unlike every other courthouse in the United States.


They have been known to be even more closed mouth than I am. A few people had a general idea, but not the details. Arnold had more, but most of it was Gricar


There was no possibility of gossip on campus that might have gotten back to someone?


There is a lot of gossip, but most of it isn't true. That's the problem with it.

StellarsJay
03-25-2012, 11:56 PM
Another Ganim story:
Matt’s biological brother, Ron Heichel, remembers being a teenager in the 1990s and trying to reach Matt at the Sandusky home.

Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, answered the phone.

“And she said, ‘He’s not your brother anymore.’ This was before he was even adopted,” he said.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/jerry_sandusky_adopted_son_had.html

J. J. in Phila
03-26-2012, 12:02 AM
From Chambers' report:
Mother had contact with a policeman's wife and so knew who to report to.
Would policemen's wives be very discrete? Or is this more to argue that lots of people must have thought JS was creepy?
And I'll give Seasock a point- of everyone who has written about "bear hug", he's the only one to get the kid's joke- it was a "bare" hug.

Well, would the mother give the policeman's wife all the details? I know I wouldn't.

She might have said, "There might have been some sexual contact between my son and a man, some type of molestation. Who do I call?" She said that was worried about overreacting.

I would be equally worried a "bear" hug, in the context of two males.

azwriter
03-26-2012, 12:37 AM
I agree that there is plenty of blame to spread around, but we can't really pretend at this point that Paterno was just an ordinary coach going about ordinary business all the time.

When all of this started, many fans reacted as if Paterno was completely untouchable just because of his fame and revered position at the university.

And now we are supposed to believe he was always an old decrepit bureaucrat who didn't even know what his coaches were doing, and if he did he had no control over them?

I guess I just can't suspend belief and accept that a man who was synonymous with Penn State football wouldn't be informed about possible legal troubles with one of his staff members back in 1998. And there's the point that many have made - he didn't name Jerry his successor in 1999 - why not? To me the logical answer is that he knew about the kid in 1998.

But that could still be a coincidence, if you believe in coincidences.

On the other hand, Paterno just may not have believed the kid's story in 98. That still doesn't explain why he didn't act more aggressively when more victims came forth. And I think even more stuff is going to come out about what Paterno knew and when he knew it. I don't think it's going to be all that easy to separate him from the rest of the university and Second Mile crowd.

Jerry and Coach, 1999
Via Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/jerry-sandusky-issues-statement-on-joe-paterno-s-death-1.3471102)
http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.3471116.1327268430!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG

Thoughtfox, for what it is worth, I agree with your post. The only thing I can add is what I picked up from rumors or comments when I visited my hometown (Washington, Pa.) in 2000. Folks there, many of my former classmates (Jerry Sandusky and I attended the same high school and were in the same graduating class) were expressing surprise and disappointment that Jerry had suddenly taken a retirement after being told by Coach Joe that he was not turning the head coach role over to Jerry. An expected event everyone was waiting on for many years in the traditional "local boy makes good" sense.

The reason on everyone's lips for Jerry stepping down was that Paterno wasn't about to retire anytime soon. The comments included "poor Jerry and boo on Coach Joe for taking back what he promised Jerry."

However, as this case has been exposed, I now believe Coach Joe had to have known of Jerry's actions and forced him off the staff and into retirement. From the standpoint of what everyone back home was expecting, that Jerry claim the head coaching position at Penn State, it certainly was a big surprise to the town folks

But to add, if that was the case, and I don't know if it was, Coach Joe should have taken further action when and if he learned of Jerry's behavior in 2011.

jmo

J. J. in Phila
03-26-2012, 01:38 AM
Thoughtfox, for what it is worth, I agree with your post. The only thing I can add is what I picked up from rumors or comments when I visited my hometown (Washington, Pa.) in 2000. Folks there, many of my former classmates (Jerry Sandusky and I attended the same high school and were in the same graduating class) were expressing surprise and disappointment that Jerry had suddenly taken a retirement after being told by Coach Joe that he was not turning the head coach role over to Jerry. An expected event everyone was waiting on for many years in the traditional "local boy makes good" sense.

The reason on everyone's lips for Jerry stepping down was that Paterno wasn't about to retire anytime soon. The comments included "poor Jerry and boo on Coach Joe for taking back what he promised Jerry."

However, as this case has been exposed, I now believe Coach Joe had to have known of Jerry's actions and forced him off the staff and into retirement. From the standpoint of what everyone back home was expecting, that Jerry claim the head coaching position at Penn State, it certainly was a big surprise to the town folks


I think you are missing the obvious. In 1995, Jay Paterno was hired as an assistant coach. In 1999, the same that Joe told the 55 year old Sandusky that he'd never be head coach, Jay was promoted. He was about 31.

Joe wanted to build a dynasty, literally the "House of Paterno." One of the people blocking that succession is Sandusky. Sandusky, even in ten years, can take the thrown; he'll still be younger than Joe. So Joe makes it clear that he won't retire and Sandusky will never take the thrown. Sandusky realizes that Paterno will still be marquee name, and one plastered all over the campus, so he gets out.

J. J. in Phila
03-26-2012, 09:47 AM
I think you are missing the obvious. In 1995, Jay Paterno was hired as an assistant coach. In 1999, the same that Joe told the 55 year old Sandusky that he'd never be head coach, Jay was promoted. He was about 31.

Joe wanted to build a dynasty, literally the "House of Paterno." One of the people blocking that succession is Sandusky. Sandusky, even in ten years, can take the thrown; he'll still be younger than Joe. So Joe makes it clear that he won't retire and Sandusky will never take the thrown. Sandusky realizes that Paterno will still be marquee name, and one plastered all over the campus, so he gets out.

You can tell it was late and sinsus medication was kicking in.

It should be "throne." :)

pittsburghgirl
03-26-2012, 11:08 AM
If a Paterno succession was the point, why had Tom Bradley stayed all those years? Why would Paterno not have told him the same thing? And there was no way to know whether Jay would ever have the capacity to be a head coach. Let's see where he ends up in the football world. The fact is that Paterno had no intention of retiring anyway in 1999 anyway.

pittsburghgirl
03-26-2012, 11:33 AM
Schreffler said he talked with both; it has been indicated that JKA "extensive disagreements" with Gricar over the case. JKA has also said, publicly, that she had the case for a bit. Now, bluntly, I believe her.

The DA's Office is always sent police reports. It is inconceivable that they would write it up, and not send it. They may not forward it to DPW.

A few things to remember and consider.

1. Only what Victim 6 said is admissible, as corroborating evidence. In both reports, Victim 6 told the same story, so that increases his credibility. The opinion that Sandusky was grooming Victim 6, or the opinion that he wasn't, are not admissible.

2. Sandusky admitted to in front of witnesses, so no one, in 1998, was denying it.

3. RFG was not known to put a lot of trust in psychologists, either in his personal or professional life. It would be likely that neither report would carry too much weight with him, except where it could be used as evidence.

The police report indicates that JKA was involved in the case so it doesn't require belief. Fact. Now what interests me is that she asked PSU LE to hold off on a psychologist eval. And it appears they didn't. Gricar is only mentioned re: the stalking. So the evidence we have, the police report, says nothing about their involvement in closing the case.

We don't know why JKA and RG were in disagreement. She may have been angry about PSU bringing in a psychologist with ties to Second Mile. And maybe RG stepped in because of the conflict. We don't know. Yet.

We do know that DPW in the person of Jerry Lauro was supposed to be part of the investigation and certainly should have seen both reports, and if there was not enough to prosecute, there could have been a DPW investigation into a man who was at that point a foster parent. We know from Lauro's comments in the media what he says Schreffler told him--there was nothing to it and he was closing his case. We know that Schreffler writes case closed with no mention of anyone in the "courthouse."

1. It doesn't matter what was admissible. The first and most important issue for a psych report on a child sex abuse victim is--was the child molested? is there a problem with this guy? is the adult's behavior as described by the child behavior concerning? are the child's stories consistent and credible, from interview to interview, and not prompted by interviewer questions? The issue first is the child, not some trial that may never happen.

2. I presume you are talking about bare/bear hugs. We have known all along he admitted to doing that but as the police report clearly shows, he denies it was sexual in any way. Seasock's report appears to support those denials. So it wasn't like Sandusky was going to stand up at trial and admit to a sex offense or take a plea bargain. He would have done what he is doing now--lawyering up and defending himself.

3. See #1. With child sex abuse victims, psychologists are the only way to gauge what a child understands, whether there is trauma, etc.

I don't see why everything must go back to suggesting "Ray Gricar was the guy who closed the case, against a mountain of evidence"--which we can pretty much see from this weekend's release of documents just is not true. What his role was probably awaits revelation of JKA's testimony.

J. J. in Phila
03-26-2012, 11:48 AM
If a Paterno succession was the point, why had Tom Bradley stayed all those years? Why would Paterno not have told him the same thing? And there was no way to know whether Jay would ever have the capacity to be a head coach. Let's see where he ends up in the football world. The fact is that Paterno had no intention of retiring anyway in 1999 anyway.

Jay had the prime qualification, the surname Paterno.

Bradley's seniority was decade behind Sandusky and was always second fiddle to Sandusky. Bradley also didn't crave the throne as much as Sandusky had. Prior to the scandal, he was looking at other opportunities, according to Wikipedia. http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/11006/1115900-233.stm

Here is 2007 interview: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=2903926

I think the key quote is:

'Why didn't you go? Why didn't you do this? Why didn't you do that?' If I could find something better, I'd know it. But I haven't found something better. It's a great atmosphere to work. Joe lets us coach and he treats us fairly and treats us like men."

Sandusky really cared. He wanted to be THE HEAD COACH of Penn State.

For Bradley, if it happened, it happened, great. If it didn't, okay, great.

"I don't worry about that," Bradley, the Penn State defensive coordinator said recently. "I like what I do. Everybody says, 'You have to be a head coach.' I've had such a great experience, great things have happened. The people that I've met, I wouldn't trade for the world."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/22/SPPD13MO0I.DTL#ixzz1qEpeVHO3

Bradley is the man Sandusky should have been.

J. J. in Phila
03-26-2012, 12:09 PM
We don't know why JKA and RG were in disagreement. She may have been angry about PSU bringing in a psychologist with ties to Second Mile. And maybe RG stepped in because of the conflict. We don't know. Yet.


He didn't get involved until a week later and I have not seen any evidence that Seasock was involved with Second Mile.


We do know that DPW in the person of Jerry Lauro was supposed to be part of the investigation and certainly should have seen both reports, and if there was not enough to prosecute, there could have been a DPW investigation into a man who was at that point a foster parent. We know from Lauro's comments in the media what he says Schreffler told him--there was nothing to it and he was closing his case. We know that Schreffler writes case closed with no mention of anyone in the "courthouse."


Scheffler did not have the authority to prevent prosecution. That had to be Gricar.


1. It doesn't matter what was admissible.


A. Of course it does. Chambers (probably right) conclusions cannot go into a prosecution. It might prompt someone to call a grand jury, but that wasn't done.


2. I presume you are talking about bare/bear hugs. We have known all along he admitted to doing that but as the police report clearly shows, he denies it was sexual in any way. Seasock's report appears to support those denials. So it wasn't like Sandusky was going to stand up at trial and admit to a sex offense or take a plea bargain. He would have done what he is doing now--lawyering up and defending himself.


B. And there you have made the mistake. Sandusky isn''t charged with sexual assult and none of the felonies and only one of the misdemeanors (there are six others) have a purely sexual element. None are technically "sexual assault."


3. See #1. With child sex abuse victims, psychologists are the only way to gauge what a child understands, whether there is trauma, etc.


See Answer B. It is not relevant to the charges.

I don't see why everything must go back to suggesting "Ray Gricar was the guy who closed the case, against a mountain of evidence"--which we can pretty much see from this weekend's release of documents just is not true. What his role was probably awaits revelation of JKA's testimony.

Because, in 1998, that decision was soley Ray Gricar's. Even JKA has said that, already. The documents added a bit of credibility to Victim 6, making him a bit stronger, but that isn't even necessary with Sandusky's admission.

Schreffler, Harmon, Chambers, Seasock, or even Arnold, didn't have the ability to decide whether or not to prosecute. That ability rested with one person, Gricar.

azwriter
03-26-2012, 03:31 PM
I think you are missing the obvious. In 1995, Jay Paterno was hired as an assistant coach. In 1999, the same that Joe told the 55 year old Sandusky that he'd never be head coach, Jay was promoted. He was about 31.

Joe wanted to build a dynasty, literally the "House of Paterno." One of the people blocking that succession is Sandusky. Sandusky, even in ten years, can take the thrown; he'll still be younger than Joe. So Joe makes it clear that he won't retire and Sandusky will never take the thrown. Sandusky realizes that Paterno will still be marquee name, and one plastered all over the campus, so he gets out.

I see what you mean, but my post points out only what was being talked about in JS's hometown among those of us who grew up there with him and expected him to someday be head coach at Penn State.

I was sharing what I overhearing as we all sat around the brunch table at the Holiday Inn. The story I heard had to start somewhere and I suspect it came from the locals. I don't think I missed anything obvious. I was just repeating the story that was being told among the hometown folks about one of their own.

pittsburghgirl
03-26-2012, 04:35 PM
If the Penn State football program had devolved to the point where seniority determined the next coach, it was already doomed. What Paterno might have wanted to see happen after he left would. Of have made an ounce of difference if the administration wanted to contend for a BCS bowl. They would have been looking for the big name Urban Meyer (sp?) type.

Reader
03-26-2012, 04:47 PM
Key question in Penn State case: Who is Victim 2?

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/24/3138865/report-sandusky-called-likely.html#wgt=rcntnews#storylink=cpy

...........But the only person who says he saw it happen is another assistant. Prosecutors don't know who the boy is, while Sandusky says he believes he does know, and that the now-grown man, referred to in court papers only as Victim 2, could exonerate him.

Even the timing of the allegation is in question, as is the age of the boy a decade ago.

All the conflicting information presents tough challenges for prosecutors - not just at the sex abuse trial beginning in mid-May, at which the defense does not plan to call the man, but also in the court of public opinion.
------

The lawyer, Joe Amendola, told The Associated Press that a young man contacted him after Sandusky's November arrest to say he believed he might be the person referred to as Victim 2. After meeting with him, along with his mother and adult brother, Amendola was left with doubts.

"I wasn't sure he was," Amendola said. "I'm still not sure. I haven't been able to verify it. Jerry's very sure."

Amendola said that the young man told him Sandusky had not abused him, but that he later obtained a lawyer and cut off contact. Amendola does not plan to subpoena the young man and declined to identify him or his lawyer.
------

State prosecutors, who need to be able to prove the ages of victims, declined to discuss the issue of the two identities.

"This case has been the result of an extensive investigation and an extensive grand jury investigation," said Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the attorney general's office. "We have a high degree of confidence in the case, but we're not going to discuss the strategy of how our prosecutors plan to present the case in court. It's just not appropriate."

To establish the age of anonymous children in child pornography cases, prosecutors sometimes have pediatric specialists apply standard measures of development, a technique that might be used in the Sandusky case.
------

Jurors may wonder why the young men have not stepped forward, despite the detailed reports of abuse and the extensive publicity surrounding Sandusky's arrest. But that would not be surprising, Mallios said, given what he saw during investigations in Philadelphia of abuse allegations against Roman Catholic clergy members.

"A lot of the victims did not tell anyone about what had happened to them until well into their 50s," he said. "They just couldn't talk about it. Even when the investigators were able to piece together their identities by talking to other victims, some just wouldn't talk about it."

More at link.....

pittsburghgirl
03-26-2012, 04:49 PM
If a police investigation concludes "there is nothing to it" the DA doesn't have anything to prosecute. There had to be a crime. The police report concludes without noting a crime was committed. It says "cased closed" immediately after the 2 detectives tell Sandusky not to shower with kids. No mention of any discussion with DAs office. No mention of meeting with Lauro to share what they had.

Moreover, let's not get the cart before the horse. Without doing an investigation, there is no way to figure out what the charges would be. If one of the psych reports turned up an indication of rape or oral sex or fondling--that would be sex assault or child abuse or maybe 2-3 things. First comes the complaint, then investigation and gathering evidence. Then charges and arrest. If the police conclude there wasn't a crime, that's it. Many murder cases or what we think are murder cases get hung up a the investigation stage. If there isn't evidence of a crime, why would a DA get involved? And if RG or JKA arbitrarily close the case why is that not noted in the report? That would be a sure CYA moment for any LE officer. And Schreffler noted other conversations with the DAs office.

The evidence points to PSU shutting it down, just as they did in 2002.

pittsburghgirl
03-26-2012, 05:18 PM
JJ, the CDT timetable linked above has Seasock talking about what Second Mile "typically" does, which indicates some familiarity with Second Mile. It would be unlikely that anyone working with CYS in that area would not be familiar.

J. J. in Phila
03-26-2012, 07:01 PM
If a police investigation concludes "there is nothing to it" the DA doesn't have anything to prosecute. There had to be a crime. The police report concludes without noting a crime was committed. It says "cased closed" immediately after the 2 detectives tell Sandusky not to shower with kids. No mention of any discussion with DAs office. No mention of meeting with Lauro to share what they had.


The police do not make that call. They didn't determine the was "nothing to it." That was the DA. You will note is 25 pages. It skips from Page 22 to 25. The events on page 22 are 5/13/98 and the events on page 25 are on 6/1/98. The text on page 22 concludes with "INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE," emphasis not added.

Gricar was only noted as talking to the police on 5/13/98. Now we have about 18 days that were not released.


Moreover, let's not get the cart before the horse. Without doing an investigation, there is no way to figure out what the charges would be. If one of the psych reports turned up an indication of rape or oral sex or fondling--that would be sex assault or child abuse or maybe 2-3 things. First comes the complaint, then investigation and gathering evidence. Then charges and arrest. If the police conclude there wasn't a crime, that's it.


Again, not even close, and especially since Schreffler thought their should be charges. The police investigate, in cases like this, then they report what happened to the DA; they report the act or acts. It is up to the DA to determine if these acts violate various statutes. I'm sorry, but this is high school civics.

And if RG or JKA arbitrarily close the case why is that not noted in the report?

I have never suggested that JKA arbitrarily closed this case; it was not her decision. Never have I suggested it was.

It was the decision the DA, Ray Gricar.


The evidence points to PSU shutting it down, just as they did in 2002.

They do not shut this down by sending it off campus to the Courthouse. They don't shut this down by involving another police department, over which they had no control.

This case was shut down by the DA. We just don't know why. "Too little evidence" is becoming laughable.

J. J. in Phila
03-26-2012, 07:03 PM
JJ, the CDT timetable linked above has Seasock talking about what Second Mile "typically" does, which indicates some familiarity with Second Mile. It would be unlikely that anyone working with CYS in that area would not be familiar.

Or somebody told him at CYS. Victim 6's mother said that it was not typical.

J. J. in Phila
03-26-2012, 07:08 PM
If the Penn State football program had devolved to the point where seniority determined the next coach, it was already doomed. What Paterno might have wanted to see happen after he left would. Of have made an ounce of difference if the administration wanted to contend for a BCS bowl. They would have been looking for the big name Urban Meyer (sp?) type.

Remember what I said about Paterno and fundraising? It's just a few pages back. That was where his power was. The name "Paterno" was a marquee name. Joe and Jay shared it.

pittsburghgirl
03-27-2012, 02:15 AM
Or somebody told him at CYS. Victim 6's mother said that it was not typical.

I was not arguing the accuracy of the point, which doesn't seem very important to me. I was j ust indicating for your benefit that Seasock was evidently familiar with Second Mile, which may be very important.

pittsburghgirl
03-27-2012, 02:17 AM
Remember what I said about Paterno and fundraising? It's just a few pages back. That was where his power was. The name "Paterno" was a marquee name. Joe and Jay shared it.

Fundraising in football means winning games and going to bowls. A BCS is worth multi-millions. If the football program languishes, and alumni interest wanes, even that sort of fundraising declines. That's why PSU wanted Meyer or someone like him.

pittsburghgirl
03-27-2012, 03:25 AM
JJ: When I wrote that police said there was "nothing to it" [nothing to the allegations against JS] I was referring to Lauro's characterization of what Schreffler said to him. There is no mainstream reference or document that I am aware of that indicates that anyone in the DA's office every spoke publicly about the 1998 case, outside of JKA's cryptic post-GJ comments. We have seen no documentary evidence aboutnthe da role other than the two references to the DA's office, one about JKA and the other about RG. We do have the final page, which says what it says: essentially that the investigating officers from PSU told JS not to shower with kids. Cased closed. And we have Schreffler's statement that Chief Harmon was the source who told him RG said to close the case. And we believe anyone from PSU administration for what reason? Two adminsitrators are now charged with perjury. It is unfair to all concerned to assume we posters know anything beyond what has been released in terms of evidence and official statements from the AG office. So I can't accept continued implications that RG made some unilateral decision to close the 1998 case, when even the statements of Schreffler and Lauro point elsewhere.

I mentioned JKA and RG in regard to closing the case because I don't know who made that decision. I was not suggesting you said that; I was indicating we don't have evidence about anyone, whether JKA or RG, closing the case. I think it's very clear that we should all go slowly and be cautious as more will come out before the trial and during the trial. We can all hope for definitive answers.

Yes, DAs decide what to charge, given an investigation. But many cases investigated by police never get to the DA's desk. If police investigate and say no crime was committed ("there's nothing to it," Schreffler told Lauro), then what would the DA be using to file charges? How does anything hold up in court if a defense attorney asks Lauro about that conversation?

Right now, what we have doesn't say anything about what RG learned, when and how he learned it. If you have the full police report, with the redacted pages, please post it so we can all see it and judge for ourselves.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 08:34 AM
I was not arguing the accuracy of the point, which doesn't seem very important to me. I was j ust indicating for your benefit that Seasock was evidently familiar with Second Mile, which may be very important.

The accuracy is the key however. If Seasock is not able to accurately report how Second Mile did things, that would indicate an unfamiliarity with Second Mile.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 08:39 AM
Fundraising in football means winning games and going to bowls. A BCS is worth multi-millions. If the football program languishes, and alumni interest wanes, even that sort of fundraising declines. That's why PSU wanted Meyer or someone like him.

Not compared with the amounts Paterno could raise. Remember the threat Paterno made? It wasn't that he'd quit if they didn't get rid of the disciplinary officer. It was that he'd stop raising money if they didn't rid of the disciplinary officer.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 09:13 AM
JJ: When I wrote that police said there was "nothing to it" [nothing to the allegations against JS] I was referring to Lauro's characterization of what Schreffler said to him. There is no mainstream reference or document that I am aware of that indicates that anyone in the DA's office every spoke publicly about the 1998 case, outside of JKA's cryptic post-GJ comments. We have seen no documentary evidence aboutnthe da role other than the two references to the DA's office, one about JKA and the other about RG.


We do know what the DA did, however. He chose not to file charges. We also know that what Lauro said was after that decision was made.


We do have the final page, which says what it says: essentially that the investigating officers from PSU told JS not to shower with kids. Cased closed. And we have Schreffler's statement that Chief Harmon was the source who told him RG said to close the case.


And we have Scheffler's statement that Gricar decided not to prosecute first and, IIRC, Harmon's statement that he got the infromation from Schreffler.

And we believe anyone from PSU administration for what reason?


Well, in this case, because it was not the PSU administration. It was the Centre County District Attorney's Office. There is a record of the case going there; there is at least one person who said it was there (and hints that others knew it was there, but not the details).

Two adminsitrators are now charged with perjury.


Which is irrelevant, since they are not charged in regard to this case, and, unlike the one where they are charged, the people there say that they did not get the details.



I mentioned JKA and RG in regard to closing the case because I don't know who made that decision. I was not suggesting you said that; I was indicating we don't have evidence about anyone, whether JKA or RG, closing the case.


First of all, it was never JKA's decision to make. That decision is that of the district attorney of the day. He makes the final decision.

Secondly, it is clear from both the record, and from both JKA's and Schreffler's statements, that Gricar made the decision.

As I said, I believe the record, Schreffler, and JKA. We have witnesses that saying the same thing, backed up by a record.

The decision not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998 leads to one spot. It leads to the private office of the District Attorney of Centre County. And all of the evidence that has come out since the grand jury conclusion says the same thing.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 10:33 AM
There is another issue. Apparently there is a registry of suspected child abusers in PA, "child-line." Sandusky could have been placed of that, and a former AG feels that that he clearly could have been.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

Now, if Lauro is telling the truth, and he never saw the Chambers' report, why didn't the DA sent it over to DPW or, if possible, put Sandusky on the registry directly?

The police report does indicate that the report went to the DA's Office.

pinktoes
03-27-2012, 11:27 AM
"Chambers gave her report to Penn State police Officer Ronald Schreffler...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.” Lauro, an investigator who specialized in abuse cases, was assigned to work the case with Schreffler."

That's how Lauro got involved. Childline got psychologist Chambers' notice of suspected abuse. Then Lauro was assigned to do his own investigation. There will be records of Childline's written report, as referenced.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

pinktoes
03-27-2012, 01:22 PM
Reading PSU's police report carefully (which is iffy since several pages are missing--and right after the contact is made with Gricar, doggone it). Looks like there was another step of referrals before you get to Lauro. That was Centre County CYS. (I read elsewhere in the media that Centre County CYS didn't handle the abuse investigation because of a conflict of interest--their closeness with Second Mile. But I want to determine what the PSU police thought).

So, it looks like PSU police account was this: Dr. Chambers, a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse, after interviewing the victim, placed a call to Childline. Childline made their own written report and made a referral to Centre County CYS, which would be the appropriate follow-up resource to investigate it.

CC-CYS's John Miller started the work, but somehow then brought in Jerry Lauro, who actually investigated. (see the police report for all the phone calls back and forth amongst all these folks).

Finally, Schreffler at PSU police, and Lauro interviewed Sandusky, advising him that no child abuse was found. And immediately the police report says 'case closed.'

We're missing critical pages about the DA's involvement. I suspect the media is cooperating by not releasing things that might jeopardize the ongoing investigation into Sandusky. Or maybe another open case; IDK.

Link to Jerry Lauro's resume:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/gerald-lauro/37/461/a9b

So, we still don't know if Lauro, rather than Miller handled the investigation (on referral from Childline) because centre county CYS thought there was a real/perceived conflict of interest due to their relationship with Second Mile. Or, if the bumped it up to Lauro because of his superior expertise or position.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 01:42 PM
"Chambers gave her report to Penn State police Officer Ronald Schreffler...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.” Lauro, an investigator who specialized in abuse cases, was assigned to work the case with Schreffler."

That's how Lauro got involved. Childline got psychologist Chambers' notice of suspected abuse. Then Lauro was assigned to do his own investigation. There will be records of Childline's written report, as referenced.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

From the article you quoted:

As a former secretary of public welfare in the 1980s, Cohen had set up a statewide “child-line” registry of suspected child abusers that could serve as a central data base for school officials and others working with children to conduct background checks on prospective employees. Even if there were no criminal charges brought, Cohen said, there was more than enough evidence to have placed Sandusky on the statewide registry.

“Jerry Sandusky should have been on the watch list,” he said. “But instead, the case was closed.”

No, Chambers' report, according to the police report went to the DA's office not to Lauro. Chambers reported the incident by the report wasn't even written when she called.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 01:51 PM
So, it looks like PSU police account was this: Dr. Chambers, a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse, after interviewing the victim, placed a call to Childline. Childline made their own written report and made a referral to Centre County CYS, which would be the appropriate follow-up resource to investigate it.


The Pennsylvania child abuse line is not the registry. It is a reporting hotline. That is who Dr. Chambers reported it to, along with giving it to the police. There is a registry, which is different (and I didn't even know about it until I read that).


Finally, Schreffler at PSU police, and Lauro interviewed Sandusky, advising him that no child abuse was found. And immediately the police report says 'case closed.'


The "case closed" was after the decision not to prosecute.


So, we still don't know if Lauro, rather than Miller handled the investigation (on referral from Childline) because centre county CYS thought there was a real/perceived conflict of interest due to their relationship with Second Mile. Or, if the bumped it up to Lauro because of his superior expertise or position.

I'm not sure that part is the issue. Second Mile did have some connection to Centre County CYS.

Tipstaff
03-27-2012, 02:06 PM
Not compared with the amounts Paterno could raise. Remember the threat Paterno made? It wasn't that he'd quit if they didn't get rid of the disciplinary officer. It was that he'd stop raising money if they didn't rid of the disciplinary officer.

Will you please explain this disciplinary officer position and what concerned Paterno about the officer? TIA!

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 02:37 PM
Will you please explain this disciplinary officer position and what concerned Paterno about the officer? TIA!

I did, a week ago. :)



Paterno's salary was comparable to other coaches: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/39131/a-look-at-big-ten-head-coaches-salaries

The difference between Paterno and the others was he donated a lot of it back to PSU and he raised money for them. He actually had donated 4 times his final year's salary back to the University.

It wasn't related directly to Sandusky, but here is the quote:

Triponey also said she was told by Spanier that the coach had given the president an ultimatum: Fire her or Paterno would stop raising funds for the university. Spanier told Triponey that he would pick her, though he didn’t want to have to make that decision.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-27/paterno-put-his-penn-state-money-above-disclosure-of-child-abuse.html

Basically, it was a turf battle over who would discipline football players. After a great deal of conflict, Paterno gave his ultimatum.

Here is an interview with Triponey: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7268172/penn-state-nittany-lions-former-officer-questioned-joe-paterno-player-treatment

The source of Paterno's power was that he would raise money.

In 2011, he couldn't use that tactic, for a number of reasons. Any fundraising ability was tarnished by the Sandusky Scandal. Paterno was in his late 70's in 2007 so, he might have had 5-10 years of fundraising left; he might have had 5 years left in 2011 at best (and at worst, none).

pinktoes
03-27-2012, 02:46 PM
Thanks, JJ. I do understand that Childline's hotline is only the first step in getting placed on their registry. First an investigation must be done.

I also understand that, in Cohen's opinion, there was sufficient evidence to get Sandusky placed on the registry.

But, something had to happen first. Someone authorized to do so had to enter his name on the registry based on the findings of some investigator.

What I'm looking for is Centre County's own written policies in place when the 1998 incident took place. Not people's interpretations of policies, evidence, or whatever. Most of what I've read, like everyone else, is newpaper reporters' interviews. I always like to go back to the original documents or testimony.

The conclusion that Schreffler closed his case based on the DA's decision is a media account and/or statement. Nor is it under oath. If anyone has any links to original source info I'd love to see it posted. I mostly want to see those missing pgs of the PSU police report, which might at least contain Schreffler's own written account of the sequence of events; his record of phone calls and conversations, etc. Then I'll feel better informed. Looks so far like he was pretty diligent in his investigation in house.

I just like to inquire about deviations from normal procedure, so that makes the use of Lauro rather than Miller of interest to me. Maybe there's info there; maybe not.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 02:51 PM
Apparently the registry is determined by a "founded" or "indicated" finding by DPW. Here is the pamphlet. http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/communication/p_011835.pdf

Lauro ruled it "unfounded," but according to him, he never had the Chambers' report (or even the more favorable Seasock report). Those were both sent to the DA's Office.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 03:04 PM
Here is the statute: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/subchapatoc.html

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 03:12 PM
But, something had to happen first. Someone authorized to do so had to enter his name on the registry based on the findings of some investigator.


DPW has to investigate, but no one told them about Chambers' report.


What I'm looking for is Centre County's own written policies in place when the 1998 incident took place. Not people's interpretations of policies, evidence, or whatever. Most of what I've read, like everyone else, is newpaper reporters' interviews. I always like to go back to the original documents or testimony.


Since Cohnen helped write the policy and since he was the Acting AG of Pennsylvania, I go with him.


The conclusion that Schreffler closed his case based on the DA's decision is a media account and/or statement. Nor is it under oath.


Once again, Schreffler does not the authority not to prosecute. We know who did in 1998.



I just like to inquire about deviations from normal procedure, so that makes the use of Lauro rather than Miller of interest to me. Maybe there's info there; maybe not.

There is no suggestion that Lauro knew about Chambers' report and he said he didn't. Schreffler didn't say that he turned the report over to Lauro. JKA has not indicated that she did.

Tipstaff
03-27-2012, 05:11 PM
Thank you JJ.

This is snipped from the Bloomberg article you linked above -

"It also creates an environment where a coach like Paterno, a Brooklyn, New York, native known as “JoePa” whose bronze statue stands outside 107,000-seat Beaver Stadium, had the power to tell the university’s president that he wouldn’t help raise another penny if the school’s top disciplinarian wasn’t fired for being too strict with his players."

So powerful was Paterno that he threatens the university president because he wasn't happy with how his players were being disciplined - imagine the power Paterno had over his coaches and other Penn State faculty and staff.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 05:18 PM
Thank you JJ.

This is snipped from the Bloomberg article you linked above -

"It also creates an environment where a coach like Paterno, a Brooklyn, New York, native known as “JoePa” whose bronze statue stands outside 107,000-seat Beaver Stadium, had the power to tell the university’s president that he wouldn’t help raise another penny if the school’s top disciplinarian wasn’t fired for being too strict with his players."

So powerful was Paterno that he threatens the university president because he wasn't happy with how his players were being disciplined - imagine the power Paterno had over his coaches and other Penn State faculty and staff.

There were some difference. Triponey was an employee, and Sandusky was not, in 2002. Paterno's threat came after a long power struggle between the two, where the issues were clear; the issues with Sandusky were not clear in 2002.

pinktoes
03-27-2012, 06:53 PM
NHS Human Services: Joseph Rocks, Chief Executive Officer

by HCE Exchange on May 6, 2011

http://www.healthcareix.com/2011/05/nhs-human-services-joseph-rocks-chief-executive-officer/

This is where Jerry Lauro works now (see my earlier link for dates he furnished on his LinkedIn). Anybody know anything about NHS?

pinktoes
03-27-2012, 06:58 PM
JJ: as I understand it, statutory requirements are that the COUNTY agency is to handle child abuse investigations. Lauro worked for the STATE's Dept of Public Welfare. Not the county.

Have you found in the statute where it requires DPW (that is a state agency) to do those investigations? I need to find the language--if you can find it, please give me the section number.

Or, anyone else?? Thanks

Rlaub44
03-27-2012, 07:27 PM
JJ: as I understand it, statutory requirements are that the COUNTY agency is to handle child abuse investigations. Lauro worked for the STATE's Dept of Public Welfare. Not the county.

Have you found in the statute where it requires DPW (that is a state agency) to do those investigations? I need to find the language--if you can find it, please give me the section number.

Or, anyone else?? Thanks

Sorry pinktoes, you won't find such language. The county agency is charged with investigating all abuse reports within that county, but they are not completely autonomous in doing so.

If I call Centre County Children and Youth to report suspected abuse, and the intake worker feels my report meets the criteria for investigation, they will contact ChildLine, the state agency under the auspices of DPW, where it is assigned a number. Or I can call ChildLine directly, and they will contact the county agency to begin the report, if warranted.

That step also starts the clock, and I believe the county agency has either 30 or 60 days (I don't remember anymore) to determine the outcome (founded, unfounded, or indicated). DPW follows up to ensure that the county agency completes the investigation on time. So even though the county agency is listed as having responsibility to investigate, it is always under the direction of DPW anyways

In this case, I think it was a good decision for CCCYS to ask DPW to investigate, because the potential conflict of interest was far too great to ignore. Can you imagine what people would be saying now if the county agency, which worked closely with Second Mile AND placed kids in Sandusky's home, had determined that the 1998 incident was unfounded? It would be yet another group involved in the cover-up.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 07:50 PM
JJ: as I understand it, statutory requirements are that the COUNTY agency is to handle child abuse investigations. Lauro worked for the STATE's Dept of Public Welfare. Not the county.

Have you found in the statute where it requires DPW (that is a state agency) to do those investigations? I need to find the language--if you can find it, please give me the section number.

Or, anyone else?? Thanks

I think these sections might cover it:


§ 3490.53. Functions of the county agency for child protective services.
(a) The county agency is the sole civil agency responsible for receiving and investigating reports of child abuse except reports of abuse allegedly perpetrated by an agent. The county agency shall investigate allegations of abuse of children residing in facilities operated directly by the Department.



§ 3490.54. Independent investigation of reports.
Except for reports investigated by the Department, the county agency shall investigate and make independent determinations on reports of suspected child abuse, regardless of another investigation conducted by another agency, the court or the police and regardless of whether or not the person making the report identified himself. A county agency may rely on an investigation of substantially the same allegations by a law enforcement agency to support the county agency’s finding regarding a child abuse report. This reliance does not limit the duties required of the county agency by section 6368 of the CPSL (relating to investigation of reports).




§ 3490.81. Responsibilities of the Department and the county agency.
(a) When the suspected abuse has been committed by an agent of the county agency, the regional staff shall investigate the report under section 6362 of the CPSL (relating to responsibilities of county agency for child protective services) and this chapter. The regional staff may not do any of the following:

(1) Take protective custody.

(2) Petition the court.

(3) Provide services.

(b) If a report is determined indicated or founded and the regional staff determines that services are necessary, the regional staff, the county agency in the county where the abuse occurred and the county agency with custody or supervision of the child, if different, shall plan for social and rehabilitative services for the child and perpetrator. The plan shall identify which county is responsible for case management.

(c) Regional staff shall conduct the investigation regardless of the relationship of the agent to the subject child.

I think Sandusky met the definition of an "agent of the county agency."

Reader
03-27-2012, 07:51 PM
We do know what the DA did, however. He chose not to file charges. We also know that what Lauro said was after that decision was made.



And we have Scheffler's statement that Gricar decided not to prosecute first and, IIRC, Harmon's statement that he got the infromation from Schreffler.



Well, in this case, because it was not the PSU administration. It was the Centre County District Attorney's Office. There is a record of the case going there; there is at least one person who said it was there (and hints that others knew it was there, but not the details).



Which is irrelevant, since they are not charged in regard to this case, and, unlike the one where they are charged, the people there say that they did not get the details.




First of all, it was never JKA's decision to make. That decision is that of the district attorney of the day. He makes the final decision.

Secondly, it is clear from both the record, and from both JKA's and Schreffler's statements, that Gricar made the decision.

As I said, I believe the record, Schreffler, and JKA. We have witnesses that saying the same thing, backed up by a record.

The decision not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998 leads to one spot. It leads to the private office of the District Attorney of Centre County. And all of the evidence that has come out since the grand jury conclusion says the same thing.

There is another issue. Apparently there is a registry of suspected child abusers in PA, "child-line." Sandusky could have been placed of that, and a former AG feels that that he clearly could have been.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

Now, if Lauro is telling the truth, and he never saw the Chambers' report, why didn't the DA sent it over to DPW or, if possible, put Sandusky on the registry directly?
The police report does indicate that the report went to the DA's Office.

BBM

Well, after all the back and forth this decision by the DA Gricar is what puzzles me the most. He had all the reports from the police, CYS and Chambers, with the details of what happened and JS's admission. There was the new statute as you stated before that could have been used for charges. He also could and should have at least placed JS on the predator registry.

I just can't understand why not do so...this was his job and from previous comments he was usually very good at it and this decision was an anomaly from the way he usually operated.

It so frustrating to know if JS could have been stopped in 1998 so many children could have been saved from his abuses.

Does anybody have any idea of some person(s) or institution, who could have influenced him to make this horrendous wrong decision? It just blows the mind to find this case hidden away and JS allowed to go on his merry way with no consequences, other than possibly being pushed out of his job. But they STILL allowed him on campus with children! Who did he know? Who helped him get out of these charges? What the heck went on for a 'good' DA to allow this proven, admitted and analyzed child abuser to remain un-outed and unpunished? Did Gricar have any connections with TSM? It's maddening...

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 08:04 PM
Just to follow up, here is the definition of "Agent of the county agency":

§ 3490.4. Definitions.

Agent of the county agency—A person who provides a children and youth social service either directly or under contract or through agreement with a county agency.

(i) An agent of the county agency includes:

(A) Preadoptive parents.

(B) Foster parents.

(C) Staff and volunteers of public and private residential child care facilities.

(D) Staff and volunteers of public and private day care centers, group day care homes and family day care homes.

(E) Staff and volunteers of public and private social service agencies.

(F) Staff and volunteers of county detention centers.

(G) Persons residing in the home of foster or preadoptive parents.

(H) A school employe of a facility or agency that is an agent of a county agency.

I bolded the two that I thought might be applicable.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 08:43 PM
BBM

Well, after all the back and forth this decision by the DA Gricar is what puzzles me the most. He had all the reports from the police, CYS and Chambers, with the details of what happened and JS's admission. There was the new statute as you stated before that could have been used for charges. He also could and should have at least placed JS on the predator registry.


DPW, in this case, would be the ones putting on the registry, but Lauro says that he was given the Chambers' report, which is damning. Now, is Lauro telling the truth? So far, it is consistent with what Schreffler put in the police report.

Now, I would call it a lapse of judgment of Gricar's part in not following up with Lauro in making sure that the report was sent. I'm not sure if he was legally required to.

It was obviously exceedingly bad judgment not to do a followup with Lauro. As of this point, there is no information that he did. (And, for that matter, there is no indication Lauro asked for it either.)

I just can't understand why not do so...this was his job and from previous comments he was usually very good at it and this decision was an anomaly from the way he usually operated.


That is one of the great mysteries of this case. I've been writing about the Gricar case for three years, looking at as much of record as I could find, and if you had told me he didn't prosecute a case like this on 11/3/11, I would have called you insane. This was not characteristic of the rest of his record.

It so frustrating to know if JS could have been stopped in 1998 so many children could have been saved from his abuses.

Even putting him on the registry could have stopped this.

Does anybody have any idea of some person(s) or institution, who could have influenced him to make this horrendous wrong decision?

In strict terms of prosecution, the felony statute Sandusky was tried under was less than 6 months old. It is possible that Gricar didn't realize that Sandusky could be charged under it. He might have missed the statute change or didn't understand it.

It will be interesting to hear from JKA on that possibility.

Another possibility, raised from time to time (and frankly Bob Buehner and Tony Gricar have hinted at this), was that RFG thought Sandusky was just too popular and that there would be a political cost. Basically, RFG was part of that culture of turning a blind eye to Sandusky. If he was, he wasn't alone in that. [It that was the case, I'd be very disappointed.]

There are other possibilities, but I really don't want to think about them. They are far worse. :( [I'm prepared for that, unfortunately.]

I have found no direct tie between Second Mile and Gricar.

pinktoes
03-27-2012, 09:10 PM
JJ: thanks for all your work on the statute. I've found a CFSR from 2002 that describes the structure of DPW. Unfortunately, PA didn't start doing CFSRs till 2000, so I haven't yet found a written document I'm looking for.

So, acc to the CFSR of 2002, the state DPW (and I presume the correct division--the one where Lauro worked) was the correct agency to investigate child abuse suspicions in certain select circumstances. One of those being where the suspect was a foster parent. That would fit Sandusky.

http://www.pacwcbt.pitt.edu/Organizational Effectiveness/AdmnsHndbk/RsrcMtrls/CFSR/CFSRSelfAssessment2002.pdf

See last para of pg 2 and top of pg 3.


So, I'm looking for 1998.

TY again.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 09:22 PM
JJ: thanks for all your work on the statute. I've found a CFSR from 2002 that describes the structure of DPW. Unfortunately, PA didn't start doing CFSRs till 2000, so I haven't yet found a written document I'm looking for.

So, acc to the CFSR of 2002, the state DPW (and I presume the correct division--the one where Lauro worked) was the correct agency to investigate child abuse suspicions in certain select circumstances. One of those being where the suspect was a foster parent. That would fit Sandusky.

http://www.pacwcbt.pitt.edu/Organizational Effectiveness/AdmnsHndbk/RsrcMtrls/CFSR/CFSRSelfAssessment2002.pdf

See last para of pg 2 and top of pg 3.


So, I'm looking for 1998.

TY again.

I would presume that was the right branch of the agency. DPW is huge.

Disclosure: I worked in the income maintenance branch of DPW in the mid 1990's, but not contemporaneous with the 1998 incident. I was welfare caseworker, assessing if people should get welfare and Food Stamps, with the well deserved street name of "The Devil Himself."

Reader
03-27-2012, 09:28 PM
Thanks for your response, J.J.

Some of the things you don't want to think about that might have influenced Gricar are IMO:

threats to his job or person

bribes (one person or a group)

favors (personal or on the job)

threats to his reputation (if HE had something to hide)

increase in salary or pension

promise of a higher political post

Also, I wonder if he could have been reported for not handling the case correctly to the Governor?

We've had cases in Florida, usually deaths, that have been taken over by the Gov and given to FDLE (similar to Trayvon case) for investigation and charges. In one of the most famous cases Rilya Wilson who was missing, Gov. Bush fired the head of DCF and appointed a panel to investigate and make recommendations. Several CPS workers lost their jobs also and a couple were charged for lying about the case.

I know this case is not on that level but it looks like if someone really cared about the child and thinking about JS being allowed to go on with his abuse and predatory behavior, they could have made that call.

But it seems that nobody really cared about anything but just processing the case and getting rid of it as quickly as possible.

Reader
03-27-2012, 10:15 PM
I would presume that was the right branch of the agency. DPW is huge.

Disclosure: I worked in the income maintenance branch of DPW in the mid 1990's, but not contemporaneous with the 1998 incident. I was welfare caseworker, assessing if people should get welfare and Food Stamps, with the well deserved street name of "The Devil Himself."

J.J. worked for the 'welfare department'!

'The Devil Himself'....I can see it, LOL...

Most states are probably set up much the same just with different titles. In Florida the headquarters/administration/policy/personnel dept. is in the capitol, Tallahassee. That is where the child abuse hotline workers are located. Those reports are then sent to a county office for investigation.

Then there are district/state offices around the state that cover several counties each, also mostly administrative/personnel/policy experts that more or less supervise the county offices. (Lauro might have worked out of one of those?)

Then the actual county offices take and process the applications, house the local CPS workers, Medicaid/nursing home workers. Most counties also have branch offices.

I won't even mention when I started but it was when we still visited every client to complete their application and reviews and verified everything. IOW, the olden days, LOL.

J. J. in Phila
03-27-2012, 11:58 PM
increase in salary or pension



I can rule out this one completely. The salary of the DA's office was fixed by state statute, though the county could, at the time, set full time (full salary) or part time (basically half salary). In 1996-7, RFG went from part time to full time. His salary could not be increased except by changing the state statute.

Also, I wonder if he could have been reported for not handling the case correctly to the Governor? .

In PA, a district attorney can only be removed from office by three method:

1. Upon conviction of "misbehavior in office" or upon conviction of an "infamous crime," by a court.

2. By impeachment by the state House and conviction by a 2/3 vote of the state Senate.

3. By the state Senate, by a 2/3 vote, after upon the "address" of the governor, though this has not been used in at least 35 years and is considered obsolete today.

Most of the information is found here: http://www.newpa.com/webfm_send/1551

(This is probably more about PA Constitutional Law than you ever wanted to know.)

In theory, a DA could be disbarred and therefore become ineligible, but I don't think that has ever happened. So far, there is no evidence that indicate disbarment was in order.

The state AG (Mike Fisher at the time) could petition the court to remove the DA from the case, "suppression," if the DA fails to prosecute and the AG feels that it is abuse of discretion. Of course, the AG would have to know about it first.

Reader
03-28-2012, 01:41 AM
I can rule out this one completely. The salary of the DA's office was fixed by state statute, though the county could, at the time, set full time (full salary) or part time (basically half salary). In 1996-7, RFG went from part time to full time. His salary could not be increased except by changing the state statute.



In PA, a district attorney can only be removed from office by three method:

1. Upon conviction of "misbehavior in office" or upon conviction of an "infamous crime," by a court.

2. By impeachment by the state House and conviction by a 2/3 vote of the state Senate.

3. By the state Senate, by a 2/3 vote, after upon the "address" of the governor, though this has not been used in at least 35 years and is considered obsolete today.

Most of the information is found here: http://www.newpa.com/webfm_send/1551

(This is probably more about PA Constitutional Law than you ever wanted to know.)

In theory, a DA could be disbarred and therefore become ineligible, but I don't think that has ever happened. So far, there is no evidence that indicate disbarment was in order.

The state AG (Mike Fisher at the time) could petition the court to remove the DA from the case, "suppression," if the DA fails to prosecute and the AG feels that it is abuse of discretion. Of course, the AG would have to know about it first.

I figured so about the salary but just in case it was possible. Do they give bonuses in Pa.? Maybe some political person offered him a big bonus if he let the case slide. In Fl. you can get nominated to get a bonus for doing a good job that year. No lie...every agency gives out bonuses every year...

Yep, that is a lot to digest this late...but I wasn't really meaning to remove him or impeach him...just someone call the governor and let him know about the case and that they disagreed with it not being charged by the DA. The gov could have called him on the carpet and made him relook at the facts and evidence and the law and explain why a charge could not be made. MAYBE he would have re-thought it!

Pensfan
03-28-2012, 02:05 AM
There is another issue. Apparently there is a registry of suspected child abusers in PA, "child-line." Sandusky could have been placed of that, and a former AG feels that that he clearly could have been.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

Now, if Lauro is telling the truth, and he never saw the Chambers' report, why didn't the DA sent it over to DPW or, if possible, put Sandusky on the registry directly?

The police report does indicate that the report went to the DA's Office.

He may have been on Childline, but if CPS found the case to be unsubstantiated he could appeal to have his name removed from the registry.




In Pennsylvania, a parent can be branded an abuser for spanking a child, and then remain on a state list with pedophiles and felons without the benefit of a court hearing, attorneys say.

"The process puts the cart before the horse," said Aaron Martin, a constitutional attorney with a private practice in Kennett Square, Chester County. "You are first declared guilty by the state, and then it is up to you to challenge that indication to assert your innocence."

Under state law, child protective service agencies such as county Children and Youth Services must investigate all reports of child abuse within 24 hours. When a social worker or police officer deems a report to be valid, law requires the immediate — and permanent — placement of the suspect's name on the state child abuse registry, regardless of whether police ever charge the person with a crime.

Pennsylvania's registry contained 112,580 names last year, the most recent figure available. Registry information is confidential and unavailable to the general public, but school districts, day care centers and other child service groups can use it to screen potential employees. The only way a name can be expunged from the registry is through an appeal hearing, attorneys said.

Read more: Pennsylvania child abuse registry posts names before due process - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_738350.html#ixzz1qOAHc8qa

J. J. in Phila
03-28-2012, 02:07 AM
I figured so about the salary but just in case it was possible. Do they give bonuses in Pa.? Maybe some political person offered him a big bonus if he let the case slide. In Fl. you can get nominated to get a bonus for doing a good job that year. No lie...every agency gives out bonuses every year...

Yep, that is a lot to digest this late...but I wasn't really meaning to remove him or impeach him...just someone call the governor and let him know about the case and that they disagreed with it not being charged by the DA. The gov could have called him on the carpet and made him relook at the facts and evidence and the law and explain why a charge could not be made. MAYBE he would have re-thought it!

No bonuses and the governor, short of those methods, could not make RFG do anything.

J. J. in Phila
03-28-2012, 11:38 AM
There is now a big story about Seasock's lesser qualifications in 1998:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/28/3142783/credentials-challenged.html

This, IMO, is overblown, as far as the prosecution, both now and in 1998, because neither opinion was or is admissible.

pittsburghgirl
03-28-2012, 12:03 PM
Not compared with the amounts Paterno could raise. Remember the threat Paterno made? It wasn't that he'd quit if they didn't get rid of the disciplinary officer. It was that he'd stop raising money if they didn't rid of the disciplinary officer.

Penn State football--$91 million PLUS in 2007-8. But that requires a winning program, which would mean great coaching and recruiting after Paterno left. Are you telling me that Paterno personally tapped people for that much year after year? And you think his son could do the same? How about a link for that?

http://http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html)

pittsburghgirl
03-28-2012, 12:09 PM
Apparently the registry is determined by a "founded" or "indicated" finding by DPW. Here is the pamphlet. http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/communication/p_011835.pdf

Lauro ruled it "unfounded," but according to him, he never had the Chambers' report (or even the more favorable Seasock report). Those were both sent to the DA's Office.

Please link to any document or official statement that the DA got both psychologists's reports. I missed that.

Then at least it is clear, based on the fact that there was a requirement for a case to be founded, that itmwas not the DA's office (or RG) who did not have responsibility to get JSmon the registry. Lauro claims he didmnot have the psych reports and he was supposed to be working with the PSU investigators.

pinktoes
03-28-2012, 12:49 PM
The first person to see those missing pgs of the PSU police report, PLEASE post it here. What's wasn't published starts with the first mention of Gricar; then we get the ending where Schreffler and Lauro met with Sandusky--said we've got no evidence--Case Closed.

I know a bit about the law, but am not a lawyer. I think it's important to remember our own legal training, as well as all the evidence we don't have, when we make judgments we're not in a fully-informed nor professionally-credentialed position to make.

Doesn't mean I don't get as frustrated with Sandusky's escapades as anybody else. But, you know, it might be that Gricar was an honest man, with more facts than we have. And in a better position to judge the likelihood of getting a conviction than we are.

Unless some of us know something not available to the public. In which case--spill the beans already! I want somebody to direct my anger at over Sandusky, too. But I want it to be the right person(s).

"“He wasn’t media savvy,” Sloane said. “He didn’t read local papers and follow local gossip. It wouldn’t have mattered if it was Joe Paterno or a 10-repeat felon. He would treat them the same way if they were legit suspected of committing crimes.”

But he wasn’t a rash prosecutor, either, Buehner said.

“I would say this about Ray: He would be extremely cautious in proceeding because he wanted to make sure that there would be a reasonable likelihood of conviction. You don’t want to go after someone high profile unless you have a compelling case.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind..._da_ray_g.html

pittsburghgirl
03-28-2012, 01:22 PM
While the psychologists' reports are inadmissible, and the psychologists can't testify as to their findings, such reports are very important in the assessment of what occurred, whether what occurred was a crime that could be prosecuted. Whether there was evicence of a crime: what the child witness could testify to, how vulnerable the child's account would be under cross examination, what other evidence there might be (clothing with DNA, potential pictures depicting abuse, notes, phone call, etc.). But remember that under discovery rules, these reports would have gone to the defense attorneys (as we can see in the current process) as would Lauro's report. Don't think for a moment that the defense wouldn't have put on experts that would have said, as Seasock said, that Sandusky's behavior fell within the "male coach" role.

We do not have, as yet, anything about the second potential victim from 1998. If the investigation was thorough, there has to be the same sort of material about that victim. What did those interviews with the other child turn up? Were there psych reports? Was he willing or able to testify?

We have one psychologist conclude that Sandusky was not grooming Victim 6 and that JS's behavior appeared to be consistent with his role as male coach. We have a stalwart parent willing to follow through and a son with a consistent story but who has some ambivalence about the totality of his experience with JS and expresses some interest in continuing with the football games, etc. The other psychologist (quite sensibly) recognizes this behavior as "grooming" but elicits no information about actual sexual abuse. Her job, of course is to report to the government agencies and warn the mother, which she does. In the sting, Sandusky runs right up to the line but never admits to deliberately touching the child in a sexual way. The sting produces what we can see is JS's weirdness but no confession to abuse. Lauro finds no reason to keep his case open when Schreffler says PSU LE is closing its case.

So what would the other 1998 victim add to this picture? Without that information, we are still not clear on who knew what and why decisions were made.

Let's also remember that PSU LE could have continued to investigate, in spite of anything anyone in the DA's office would have said. Were there interviews with Second Mile kids? Or JS's foster children? Was there any discussion of phone taps or surveillance? Were there interviews with PSU football personnel or players, in an attempt to find someone who might have seen something. We don't know, yet, just as we did not know about the two psych reports.

One thing I do know is that PSU LE could have gone to Sandusky's supervisor and told him we think this guy is a pedophile, if they felt there was a case and the DA was dropping the ball. Or they could have continued to investigate and keep the case open. As pinktoes said, until we get the key people under oath so we can compare what they have claimed in the media to what the documents say and to their GJ testimony, let's not speculate that the one guy who has never been able to defend himself, Ray Gricar, was involved in covering up for Sandusky. It's pretty clear who was up to that in 2002, when Schultz (in charge of PSU police) could have called the DA at that time and said Sandusky had been seen raping a boy. It seems more likely to me that the order to close the case in 1998 came down the PSU food chain. The feds are looking at cover-up back to that date. Schreffler was told to close the case by his Chief, who blamed RG. RG may have said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. All that would have meant is that the investigation would need to continue until The police had enough to make an arrest.

J. J. in Phila
03-28-2012, 01:26 PM
Penn State football--$91 million PLUS in 2007-8. But that requires a winning program, which would mean great coaching and recruiting after Paterno left. Are you telling me that Paterno personally tapped people for that much year after year? And you think his son could do the same? How about a link for that?

http://http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html)

Considering that even a bad program will make some money, it was probably a positive on the balance sheet.

J. J. in Phila
03-28-2012, 01:41 PM
While the psychologists' reports are inadmissible, and the psychologists can't testify as to their findings, such reports are very important in the assessment of what occurred, whether what occurred was a crime that could be prosecuted. Whether there was evicence of a crime: what the child witness could testify to, how vulnerable the child's account would be under cross examination, what other evidence there might be (clothing with DNA, potential pictures depicting abuse, notes, phone call, etc.). But remember that under discovery rules, these reports would have gone to the defense attorneys (as we can see in the current process) as would Lauro's report. Don't think for a moment that the defense wouldn't have put on experts that would have said, as Seasock said, that Sandusky's behavior fell within the "male coach" role.


There are now questions about Seasock's ability to claim that. I do think it would be gigantically unlikely for any experienced psychologist to say that it is "coachly" to bear hug naked people in the shower.

We do not have, as yet, anything about the second potential victim from 1998. If the investigation was thorough, there has to be the same sort of material about that victim. What did those interviews with the other child turn up? Were there psych reports? Was he willing or able to testify?

Willing isn't a question; he could be compelled to testify (and still might show up). That was just a straight forward report, from what we have heard so far.

We have one psychologist conclude that Sandusky was not grooming Victim 6 and that JS's behavior appeared to be consistent with his role as male coach. We have a stalwart parent willing to follow through and a son with a consistent story but who has some ambivalence about the totality of his experience with JS and expresses some interest in continuing with the football games, etc.


Keep in mind that only one was a psychologist at the time.


In the sting, Sandusky runs right up to the line but never admits to deliberately touching the child in a sexual way. The sting produces what we can see is JS's weirdness but no confession to abuse.

He does not have to; try to understand that. It only has to be an act of "open lewdness" for the felony.


Lauro finds no reason to keep his case open when Schreffler says PSU LE is closing its case.

Lauro didn't have the Chambers' report.

So what would the other 1998 victim add to this picture?

Corroboration.

You've made a lot of assumptions about the felony that are wrong. The statute was posted.

J. J. in Phila
03-28-2012, 01:59 PM
He may have been on Childline, but if CPS found the case to be unsubstantiated he could appeal to have his name removed from the registry.



So, let him appeal. With the Chambers' report, and the witnesses, it would have become very unlikely for that to occur.

It really comes down to if you think a 55 year old naked man should be bear hugging naked little boys from behind in the shower. I think the legal term for that is "no-brainier." :)

pinktoes
03-28-2012, 02:10 PM
"It really comes down to if you think a 55 year old naked man should be bear hugging naked little boys from behind in the shower. I think the legal term for that is "no-brainier." "

I disagree, JJ. I accept it as a statement reflecting personal emotion.

But what it really, REALLY comes down to, is "do I think I can get a conviction?"

Since I'm neither an experienced DA, nor do I reside in Centre County, (nor do I have all the facts), I have to defer to someone who was all that.

But I still agree with your anger and frustration. We all feel it.

J. J. in Phila
03-28-2012, 02:42 PM
"It really comes down to if you think a 55 year old naked man should be bear hugging naked little boys from behind in the shower. I think the legal term for that is "no-brainier." "

I disagree, JJ. I accept it as a statement reflecting personal emotion.

But what it really, REALLY comes down to, is "do I think I can get a conviction?"


Well, I can say if you think such an act constitutes "open lewdness." RFG prosecuted cases, that he lost, that he knew would be almost impossible to win.

If RFG looked at this and said "Penn State is too big. Sandusky is too popular. He broke the law and there is sufficient evidence, but I won't try it," that would still be a colossal lapse of judgment. He would have become part of the culture of coverup at Penn State. I'm not saying that he did think that.

Reader
03-28-2012, 11:21 PM
The first person to see those missing pgs of the PSU police report, PLEASE post it here. What's wasn't published starts with the first mention of Gricar; then we get the ending where Schreffler and Lauro met with Sandusky--said we've got no evidence--Case Closed.

I know a bit about the law, but am not a lawyer. I think it's important to remember our own legal training, as well as all the evidence we don't have, when we make judgments we're not in a fully-informed nor professionally-credentialed position to make.

Doesn't mean I don't get as frustrated with Sandusky's escapades as anybody else. But, you know, it might be that Gricar was an honest man, with more facts than we have. And in a better position to judge the likelihood of getting a conviction than we are.

Unless some of us know something not available to the public. In which case--spill the beans already! I want somebody to direct my anger at over Sandusky, too. But I want it to be the right person(s).

"“He wasn’t media savvy,” Sloane said. “He didn’t read local papers and follow local gossip. It wouldn’t have mattered if it was Joe Paterno or a 10-repeat felon. He would treat them the same way if they were legit suspected of committing crimes.”

But he wasn’t a rash prosecutor, either, Buehner said.

“I would say this about Ray: He would be extremely cautious in proceeding because he wanted to make sure that there would be a reasonable likelihood of conviction. You don’t want to go after someone high profile unless you have a compelling case.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind..._da_ray_g.html

So we're not supposed to express our opinions on this opinion board without a law degree or being a professional?

Look, as far as I'm concerned from what I have read so far there was a prosecutable case against Sandusky in 1998 for the crime of lewdness, with this one boy and possibly another. The DA had all the reports and documents. JS admitted what he did to witnessess. It should have gone to trial and I only want to know why it did not. Gricar made that decision. Why?

J. J. in Phila
03-28-2012, 11:50 PM
So we're not supposed to express our opinions on this opinion board without a law degree or being a professional?

Look, as far as I'm concerned from what I have read so far there was a prosecutable case against Sandusky in 1998 for the crime of lewdness, with this one boy and possibly another. The DA had all the reports and documents. JS admitted what he did to witnessess. It should have gone to trial and I only want to know why it did not. Gricar made that decision. Why?

You are correct, but it is under the open lewdness clause of Unlawful Contact with Minors charge.

Here is the appropriate text:

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html



"Open lewdness" is a different charge. Under Unlawful Contact with Minor charge, there basically a laundry list of charges and it if the perp can be charged with any one (or several) the things on the list, Unlawful Contact can be filed. It's basically, the perp engages in some other act with/in front of a minor, and that some other act is on the list, showing a minor a pornographic video, for example, he could be charged with it.

If, for example, I'm in the library at Penn State and I "amuse myself," I could be charged with open lewdness (a basketball player was so charged). If the librarians 10 year old son happened to standing be there, I could be charged with Unlawful Contact, even if I no inclination at all toward the son. That would be true even if I put my coat across my lap so you couldn't actually see anything (and there is case law to that effect in PA).

An unfortunately graphic explanation.

Also keep in mind that Dr. Chambers' opinion was not admissible, and neither was Mr. Seasock's opinion, so other that raising a red flag, there wasn't anything RFG could do with it.

Reader
03-29-2012, 01:57 AM
You are correct, but it is under the open lewdness clause of Unlawful Contact with Minors charge.

Here is the appropriate text:

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html



"Open lewdness" is a different charge. Under Unlawful Contact with Minor charge, there basically a laundry list of charges and it if the perp can be charged with any one (or several) the things on the list, Unlawful Contact can be filed. It's basically, the perp engages in some other act with/in front of a minor, and that some other act is on the list, showing a minor a pornographic video, for example, he could be charged with it.

If, for example, I'm in the library at Penn State and I "amuse myself," I could be charged with open lewdness (a basketball player was so charged). If the librarians 10 year old son happened to standing be there, I could be charged with Unlawful Contact, even if I no inclination at all toward the son. That would be true even if I put my coat across my lap so you couldn't actually see anything (and there is case law to that effect in PA).

An unfortunately graphic explanation.

Also keep in mind that Dr. Chambers' opinion was not admissible, and neither was Mr. Seasock's opinion, so other that raising a red flag, there wasn't anything RFG could do with it.

OK, thanks on explaining the charge further. BBM....but what I understood from previous posts, although those opinions could not be used as evidence, what the child told them about the event could be used...correct?

ThoughtFox
03-29-2012, 02:02 AM
So we're not supposed to express our opinions on this opinion board without a law degree or being a professional?

Look, as far as I'm concerned from what I have read so far there was a prosecutable case against Sandusky in 1998 for the crime of lewdness, with this one boy and possibly another. The DA had all the reports and documents. JS admitted what he did to witnessess. It should have gone to trial and I only want to know why it did not. Gricar made that decision. Why?

I'm not a lawyer either, and I understand the sympathy for Gricar since he is missing and might have been a victim also.

But heck - while I would love to believe that Gricar was a perfect prosecutor who always did the right thing at all times, I'm really puzzled about why he didn't push things in 98.

Grand Juries are called all the time all over the country for much lesser charges - honestly, you don't have to be an attorney to know that.

J. J. in Phila
03-29-2012, 02:05 AM
OK, thanks on explaining the charge further. BBM....but what I understood from previous posts, although those opinions could not be used as evidence, what the child told them about the event could be used...correct?

That's what the Dauphin County DA said. It could be permitted, but it would be up to the judge.

If permitted, it would be a minor boost of Victim 6's credibility. With Sandusky's admission, it would just be minor.

J. J. in Phila
03-29-2012, 09:28 AM
I'm not a lawyer either, and I understand the sympathy for Gricar since he is missing and might have been a victim also.

But heck - while I would love to believe that Gricar was a perfect prosecutor who always did the right thing at all times, I'm really puzzled about why he didn't push things in 98.

Grand Juries are called all the time all over the country for much lesser charges - honestly, you don't have to be an attorney to know that.

I think one of the key factors is looking at some of RFG's other cases, which I did well before the Sandusky case. He tended to prosecute cases that, just looking at if from the outside, were going to be almost impossible to win. In 2010, before the investigators ever heard of Victim 6, I did a blog on this: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html The Grove case that was mentioned in was less than 18 months before the 1998 incident.

Looking at other cases, it is the same thing. I found a highly publicized rape case from the early 2000's against a Penn State football player. It got controversial because Paterno let the guy suit up for a bowl game and made some stupid comment about rape. The victim, however, continued seeing the accused after the alleged rape. It was only the victim's word and her actions didn't match what you'd expect from a rape victim. RFG lost the case, but he still fought it out in court. There is a link to it in an earlier Gricar thread.

The question is, if he prosecuted these others, with weaker evidence, why didn't he prosecute Sandusky?

Reader
03-29-2012, 01:52 PM
That's what the Dauphin County DA said. It could be permitted, but it would be up to the judge.

If permitted, it would be a minor boost of Victim 6's credibility. With Sandusky's admission, it would just be minor.

I'm a little confused about what you mean here...did you mean 'with' or 'without' JS's admission 'it would just be minor.'?

It seems to me that if the court allowed the doctor's statement of the child's account plus JS's admission, it would be a major boost to the case.

Also, another thought about those papers from the real psychologist and the wanna be...their value to RG would also be in how HE considered and evaluated them in relation to the truth of the boy's account as evidence, no matter if they could actually be presented in court or not. I have a feeling he would have discounted the laughable 'coachly' opinion and would have thought more of what Dr. Chambers wrote and her opinion.

In relation to that, do we have any records of how many child abuse cases RG had handled previously and how active he was generally in prosecuting them?

J. J. in Phila
03-29-2012, 02:51 PM
I'm a little confused about what you mean here...did you mean 'with' or 'without' JS's admission 'it would just be minor.'?


The fact that Victim 6 repeated his story, and it was materially the same, days after, gives a little bit of support that he, Victim 6, is honest. A bit.


It seems to me that if the court allowed the doctor's statement of the child's account plus JS's admission, it would be a major boost to the case.


The fact that Victim 6 said, "X happened," and Sandusky said, "X happened," is the real clincher. There is no disagreement. Victim 6's credibility really isn't an issue because Sandusky said that what he said was true.

Also, another thought about those papers from the real psychologist and the wanna be...their value to RG would also be in how HE considered and evaluated them in relation to the truth of the boy's account as evidence, no matter if they could actually be presented in court or not. I have a feeling he would have discounted the laughable 'coachly' opinion and would have thought more of what Dr. Chambers wrote and her opinion.


I did a blog on the weight and I doubt RFG would give either report very much weight.

In relation to that, do we have any records of how many child abuse cases RG had handled previously and how active he was generally in prosecuting them?

That I don't know. We do know that he assigned Arnold abuse cases, sometime in 1998. That is some of the reason that I find this so strange, the "go to" person in the office wasn't "gone to."

J. J. in Phila
03-29-2012, 06:13 PM
Trial postponed until June 5. The prosecution concurred on a sequestered jury.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/29/3144537/prosecutors-in-sandusky-case-have.html

J. J. in Phila
03-29-2012, 11:01 PM
I'm posting this blog link to the blog only to look at how much weight RFG gave to psychology in his professional and personal lives:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/25/3140008/psychology.html

There is also the factor that Dr. Chambers' opinion was not admissible.

While this makes RFG look like he dropped the ball, big time, in this context, I don't find too strange.

Pensfan
03-30-2012, 03:16 AM
The selected jurors should be sequestered? Who wants and can afford to be sequestered for 2-4 months for Jerry’s trial? (People who are living on their mental health disability check and the elderly?)

IMO, the hope for 12 high functioning jurors and some alternates has been flushed!
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/sandusky_charges_should_go_to.html

{Hey, JJ. Tell that blog reader that in PA, it is correctly pronounced gob snack and not gobsmacked. ;)}
http://images.quickblogcast.com/1/3/3/0/1/118176-110331/gobs1_cropped2.JPG

Pensfan
03-30-2012, 03:43 AM
In PA, first time child pervs can be sentenced to Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for a few months. The district attorney can move summary ARD consideration to the court of common pleas.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter3/chap3toc.html

In 2006, a prominent business man in one PA suburb outside Harrisburg fondled a preteen on numerous occasions and stalked her. He was given a short ARD and avoided a very public trial because it was his first offense. :furious:

Tipstaff
03-30-2012, 08:05 AM
Judge delays Sandusky sex-abuse trial

The Associated Press

The judge overseeing former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child sexual abuse case on Thursday delayed the start of the trial by three weeks to early June, and prosecutors filed a lengthy court document that said the case should not be dismissed.

Judge John Cleland said the additional time was needed "to accommodate various logistical contingencies that have arisen," and the attorney general's office supported the postponement.

The prosecution's 21-page answer to a catch-all pretrial motion that Mr. Sandusky's lawyer submitted a week ago said the commonwealth had "broad latitude" to establish the dates of allegations in child sexual abuse cases. Mr. Sandusky has asked for more specifics about when the alleged crimes occurred.

"Defendant cannot exploit the appalling breadth of his own criminal conduct by claiming it encompasses so long a period as to hamper his defense," wrote chief deputy attorney general Frank Fina.

The 68-year-old retired defensive coordinator faces 52 counts involving 10 alleged victims over 15 years. He remains confined to his home to await trial. Prosecutors have accused him of engaging in a range of illegal behavior with the boys, including sexual assaults, allegations he denies.

Mr. Fina disputed Sandusky's argument that witness Mike McQueary will not be able to prove the charges involving a young boy allegedly seen by Mr. McQueary being sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky in the Penn State showers in 2002.

"The defense appears to argue that an eyewitness who sees an adult man having sex with a child cannot provide sufficient evidence of the conduct of crimes," Fina wrote. "It is noteworthy that the defense provides no legal support for such a specious assertion."

Judge Cleland said a hearing remains scheduled for April 5 in Bellefonte to argue over the pretrial issues.

Above is an AP story from this mornings Post-Gazette at www.post-gazette.com

J. J. in Phila
03-30-2012, 08:32 AM
In PA, first time child pervs can be sentenced to Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for a few months. The district attorney can move summary ARD consideration to the court of common pleas.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter3/chap3toc.html

In 2006, a prominent business man in one PA suburb outside Harrisburg fondled a preteen on numerous occasions and stalked her. He was given a short ARD and avoided a very public trial because it was his first offense. :furious:

Something similar happened in Centre County; a township official charged and, on a plea he received ARD.

Also, even in cases of rape, the sentence can be light. One of the former priests in the Catholic Church sex scandal in Philadelphia plead guilty, and will be offering evidence against some higher up. He, I think got 2 1/2 - 5. I'm told that he'll be out within 20 months, with good behavior.

I would, however, think that in these cases the person might be either on the state registry, Megan's list, or both.

[Just a note: Last week, a British commentator on Fox used "gobsmacked." ]

J. J. in Phila
03-30-2012, 02:30 PM
Please link to any document or official statement that the DA got both psychologists's reports. I missed that.


Both are in here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8


Then at least it is clear, based on the fact that there was a requirement for a case to be founded, that itmwas not the DA's office (or RG) who did not have responsibility to get JSmon the registry. Lauro claims he didmnot have the psych reports and he was supposed to be working with the PSU investigators.

I think that there are a lot of questions around this. The police report does not indicate Laura had the Chambers report.

1. Chambers was one of the reporters, so why didn't Lauro ask her for anything relevant?

2. Schreffler had the report, but he didn't give it to Lauro. Why? Was there an ethical requirement to keep it confidential? Schreffler, probably didn't handle many (or any) child abuse cases, so I could understand why he might not be familiar with the process.

3. Gricar had the report, but he never gave it to Lauro. Again, why? Was there an ethical requirement to keep it confidential? If so, why not call Chambers and ask he to send a copy to Lauro, with the permission?

I can understand everyone thinking the other person did it, but why was there no followup, at least? Why didn't Lauro contact Chambers and why didn't either Schreffler or Gricar make sure Lauro had the report?

I would call this multiple failures of multiple individuals, at best.

Reader
03-30-2012, 04:49 PM
I'm posting this blog link to the blog only to look at how much weight RFG gave to psychology in his professional and personal lives:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/25/3140008/psychology.html

There is also the factor that Dr. Chambers' opinion was not admissible.

While this makes RFG look like he dropped the ball, big time, in this context, I don't find too strange.

I can get to the blog from your links here but still not from the centredaily link. Guess I'll have to load up another browzer after all.

Anywho, that was interesting and explained his viewpoint well. I remember when Gricar first became 'missing' I did follow the case here and IS and there was info about how he might have had health problems and would not seek help. You got some good comments also.

About Lauro not getting the Chambers report from Scheffler or Gricar, makes me wonder if this was deliberate so he would just drop the case and not continue his own investigation, esp. in light of Scheffler saying 'there was nothing to it' when he of all people knew there was something to it from the admissions they had from JS himself, plus the 2 children.

I also wonder if B.K. would now be available since most troops are now back from Iraq, unless he is still overseas somewhere. Looks like they could get his testimony by video, in writing or something? Of course, he'd have to be available for cross examination during the trial but with a subpeona, he could possibly get leave for that if he's in the states.

Reader
03-30-2012, 05:30 PM
The selected jurors should be sequestered? Who wants and can afford to be sequestered for 2-4 months for Jerry’s trial? (People who are living on their mental health disability check and the elderly?)

IMO, the hope for 12 high functioning jurors and some alternates has been flushed!
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/sandusky_charges_should_go_to.html

{Hey, JJ. Tell that blog reader that in PA, it is correctly pronounced gob snack and not gobsmacked. ;)}
http://images.quickblogcast.com/1/3/3/0/1/118176-110331/gobs1_cropped2.JPG

Hey, Pensfan...just because we're retired doesn't mean we're all 'mental' or THAT elderly, LOL!

What about the unemployed in Pa.? There are probably a lot of those that would not mind serving and even being out of the house for a while.

Since it's summer a lot of teachers and adult students might be available also.

Reader
03-30-2012, 05:41 PM
Judge delays Sandusky sex-abuse trial

The Associated Press

The judge overseeing former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child sexual abuse case on Thursday delayed the start of the trial by three weeks to early June, and prosecutors filed a lengthy court document that said the case should not be dismissed.

Judge John Cleland said the additional time was needed "to accommodate various logistical contingencies that have arisen," and the attorney general's office supported the postponement.

The prosecution's 21-page answer to a catch-all pretrial motion that Mr. Sandusky's lawyer submitted a week ago said the commonwealth had "broad latitude" to establish the dates of allegations in child sexual abuse cases. Mr. Sandusky has asked for more specifics about when the alleged crimes occurred.

"Defendant cannot exploit the appalling breadth of his own criminal conduct by claiming it encompasses so long a period as to hamper his defense," wrote chief deputy attorney general Frank Fina.

The 68-year-old retired defensive coordinator faces 52 counts involving 10 alleged victims over 15 years. He remains confined to his home to await trial. Prosecutors have accused him of engaging in a range of illegal behavior with the boys, including sexual assaults, allegations he denies.

Mr. Fina disputed Sandusky's argument that witness Mike McQueary will not be able to prove the charges involving a young boy allegedly seen by Mr. McQueary being sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky in the Penn State showers in 2002.

"The defense appears to argue that an eyewitness who sees an adult man having sex with a child cannot provide sufficient evidence of the conduct of crimes," Fina wrote. "It is noteworthy that the defense provides no legal support for such a specious assertion."

Judge Cleland said a hearing remains scheduled for April 5 in Bellefonte to argue over the pretrial issues.

Above is an AP story from this mornings Post-Gazette at www.post-gazette.com

BBM...love it that the prosecutors are letting JS and Amendola know their games are not gonna work with them because the law is on their side and the case and witnesses are strong. Sweat it, JS, your time is coming soon for the world to know just who you really are! And NOBODY is there to protect you anymore..who would really believe dear ol Dottie with her highly vested interest to lie?

J. J. in Phila
03-30-2012, 06:12 PM
Anywho, that was interesting and explained his viewpoint well. I remember when Gricar first became 'missing' I did follow the case here and IS and there was info about how he might have had health problems and would not seek help. You got some good comments also.


There were some things about RFG that when you first look at them, they look strange. His decision to retire at 60, and not practice law, for example. After talking to people who knew him, it really isn't too strange. He wanted to travel (and he may be doing just that). In that context, his retirement makes sense.

It's the same for how he'd view the Chambers' report. I can very easily see RFG looking at it and thinking that it's psychobabble (it isn't), along with being inadmissible. I can understand why this would have little weight with him.

About Lauro not getting the Chambers report from Scheffler or Gricar, makes me wonder if this was deliberate so he would just drop the case and not continue his own investigation, esp. in light of Scheffler saying 'there was nothing to it' when he of all people knew there was something to it from the admissions they had from JS himself, plus the 2 children.

Well, according to the statute, DPW/CYS have the responsibility of investigating, even if there is a criminal investigation. So basically, it Lauro's responsibility to gather the information for the registry determination.

The could have, however, been an honest mistake. Schreffler and Gricar could have assumed Lauro contacted Chambers, and didn't feel that they needed follow up. That would not have a focus of the criminal investigation.

That said, I was critical of Paterno for not doing followup with Curley and Schultz in 2002; my criticism was mild compared to others here. Apparently, RFG did not follow up with Lauro. This deserves stronger criticism because RFG had far more information than Paterno did, just in terms of the registry issue. Again, I would call this poor judgment, if it was nothing more.


I also wonder if B.K. would now be available since most troops are now back from Iraq, unless he is still overseas somewhere. Looks like they could get his testimony by video, in writing or something? Of course, he'd have to be available for cross examination during the trial but with a subpeona, he could possibly get leave for that if he's in the states.

He couldn't appear before the grand jury, but he could be a witness and would add a bit of corroboration to Victim 6, but I doubt it would be needed.

J. J. in Phila
03-30-2012, 09:20 PM
The AG cites 33 statements made by Curley and Schultz in the grand jury as perjury: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/30/3146296/ag-lists-alleged-perjury-by-curley.html

BigCat
03-31-2012, 10:27 AM
I think one of the key factors is looking at some of RFG's other cases, which I did well before the Sandusky case. He tended to prosecute cases that, just looking at if from the outside, were going to be almost impossible to win. In 2010, before the investigators ever heard of Victim 6, I did a blog on this: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html The Grove case that was mentioned in was less than 18 months before the 1998 incident.

Looking at other cases, it is the same thing. I found a highly publicized rape case from the early 2000's against a Penn State football player. It got controversial because Paterno let the guy suit up for a bowl game and made some stupid comment about rape. The victim, however, continued seeing the accused after the alleged rape. It was only the victim's word and her actions didn't match what you'd expect from a rape victim. RFG lost the case, but he still fought it out in court. There is a link to it in an earlier Gricar thread.

The question is, if he prosecuted these others, with weaker evidence, why didn't he prosecute Sandusky?

I don't believe a head coach could survive his defensive coordinator of 20 years being charged with a sexual crime against a child. If any coach could have survived, it would have been Paterno; however, his ability to recruit high school athletes would have been severely hampered. A rape conviction against one of his players would not have done the same damage, not even close.

Now, I don't believe RFG was concerned with protecting Paterno and PSU football. But he is a human being and he must have been concerned about the backlash from the community. Not every DA wants to be Atticus Finch. :twocents:

J. J. in Phila
03-31-2012, 11:03 AM
I don't believe a head coach could survive his defensive coordinator of 20 years being charged with a sexual crime against a child. If any coach could have survived, it would have been Paterno; however, his ability to recruit high school athletes would have been severely hampered. A rape conviction against one of his players would not have done the same damage, not even close.


I think both Paterno and Spanier (sp) would have easily survived. This was the the private life of an employee and it didn't involve football age people as victims. There was no suggestion that either of them knew, before the Victim 6 incident was reported.

Now, I don't believe RFG was concerned with protecting Paterno and PSU football. But he is a human being and he must have been concerned about the backlash from the community. Not every DA wants to be Atticus Finch. :twocents:

There probably would have been a backlash in 1998, with Sandusky seen as heir apparent to Paterno. After he retired, it would have been substantially less.

RFG ran for reelection in 2001, and had a contested primary. He won that by about 55% to 45%, relatively close for a 16 year incumbent in a GOP primary. The municipal election was uncontested. He said, when he announced his retirement (more than a year prior to disappearing), that it had "the plan" for him not to run for another term. He'd been with the county for 25 years, and would have been DA for 20 years. He said that he wasn't planning to run for anything or even practice law.

Any political backlash would have made no difference after he was reelected in 2001; he wasn't going to run for anything. He didn't even have to worry about future law clients in private practice, because he wasn't planning to have a private practice. The statute of limitations, even at the time, had not expired and he could have filed.

One question is, why didn't RFG file in 1998. Political backlash might be the answer. Another question is, why didn't he file after 2001? He was neither running nor planning to go into private practice. Sandusky, while still respected, was not part of Penn State football at that time, so the backlash would be minimized.

RFG wouldn't have to be Atticus Finch; he could have been Bill Clinton, in terms of political expediency, and still prosecuted. ;)

StellarsJay
03-31-2012, 06:52 PM
Prosecutors respond on perjury counts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/31/us-pennstate-sandusky-idUSBRE82U03K20120331
Curley and Schultz argued in their February motions to dismiss the perjury charges, saying Paterno was not available to support McQueary's testimony during their criminal trial and there was no one else to back up his claim.

"McQueary's testimony was corroborated by that of his father, John McQueary … (who) testified that he met with Defendant Schultz some time after the incident described by his son," wrote Bruce Beemer, the attorney general's chief of staff.

"At that meeting, Schultz's words and behavior indicated that he understood that Michael … had witnessed sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy. Because Schultz would have learned of such from Michael McQueary, the testimony of Michael McQueary is corroborated," Beemer said.

Yay Beemer!

BigCat
03-31-2012, 09:06 PM
I think both Paterno and Spanier (sp) would have easily survived. This was the the private life of an employee and it didn't involve football age people as victims. There was no suggestion that either of them knew, before the Victim 6 incident was reported.

Private life of an employee? Victim 6 was molested in the Penn State locker room showers. Victim 5 was molested in the showers between 96-98. Victim 4 was a guest of the Sandusky family at the Alamo Bowl in January of 98. The fact that Paterno may have not known it was going on is hardly an endorsement of his leadership. Do you think an IBM branch manager would survive his second-in-charge sexual assaulting children on company property? The only reason I suggested that Paterno may have survived is due to the bizarro cult of personality that surrounded him at PSU.

J. J. in Phila
03-31-2012, 09:21 PM
Private life of an employee? Victim 6 was molested in the Penn State locker room showers. Victim 5 was molested in the showers between 96-98. Victim 4 was a guest of the Sandusky family at the Alamo Bowl in January of 98. The fact that Paterno may have not known it was going on is hardly an endorsement of his leadership. Do you think an IBM branch manager would survive his second-in-charge sexual assaulting children on company property? The only reason I suggested that Paterno may have survived is due to the bizarro cult of personality that surrounded him at PSU.


Yes, I think that a division head would have survived, unless there was a reasonable likelihood that he would have known. Unless there was a situation where there was a witness and the supervisor knew, it is survivable.

The problem is that, in 1998-99 as taking out the next head coach. That wouldn't have been there after 12/99.

Rlaub44
03-31-2012, 09:47 PM
Private life of an employee? Victim 6 was molested in the Penn State locker room showers. Victim 5 was molested in the showers between 96-98. Victim 4 was a guest of the Sandusky family at the Alamo Bowl in January of 98. The fact that Paterno may have not known it was going on is hardly an endorsement of his leadership. Do you think an IBM branch manager would survive his second-in-charge sexual assaulting children on company property? The only reason I suggested that Paterno may have survived is due to the bizarro cult of personality that surrounded him at PSU.

I think a good analogy for this might be when a schoolteacher is accused or convicted of abusing students; it is very rare that the principal and superintendent lose their jobs as well. In those cases, they had even better opportunity for awareness, because the abused children are also under their auspices.

In the Sandusky case, he brought his Second Mile kids onto Penn State facilities, and generally when Paterno wasn't even in the same building. Like JJ said, I too think Paterno would have survived if the revelations had occurred at the time; think of the Syracuse basketball scandal with Bernie Fine, and how we aren't hearing the calls for Jim Boeheim's head.

Reader
03-31-2012, 11:50 PM
Prosecutors respond on perjury counts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/31/us-pennstate-sandusky-idUSBRE82U03K20120331
Curley and Schultz argued in their February motions to dismiss the perjury charges, saying Paterno was not available to support McQueary's testimony during their criminal trial and there was no one else to back up his claim.

"McQueary's testimony was corroborated by that of his father, John McQueary … (who) testified that he met with Defendant Schultz some time after the incident described by his son," wrote Bruce Beemer, the attorney general's chief of staff.

"At that meeting, Schultz's words and behavior indicated that he understood that Michael … had witnessed sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy. Because Schultz would have learned of such from Michael McQueary, the testimony of Michael McQueary is corroborated," Beemer said.

Yay Beemer!

Woop!!

I remember when 'they', assume JS's lawyer and supporters, were putting out the rumor that his father and some friend were told a different story than MM told Paterno, Schultz and Curley.

Now here it turns out his father not only heard the same story but can testify that Schultz DID hear the same account from MM.

These people have lied so much they forgot who they lied to.

J. J. in Phila
04-01-2012, 12:07 AM
But he is a human being and he must have been concerned about the backlash from the community. Not every DA wants to be Atticus Finch. :twocents:

I think this might explain the trouble I'm having about RFG's role in this.

About 15 months prior to the 1998 incident, RFG pressed the Grove case.

Grove was a local resident who shot a man that had repeatedly broken a trailer he owned; the man's name was Sampson. Sampson and his wife were his friends, but Sampson was accused of assaulting his wife. She was in a woman's shelter and Sampson had broken in to take his wife's possessions, without her permission.

Sampson was black and from Phila, very clearly an outsider; Grove was white and grew up in Centre County. Today the county is 3% black and I'd expect was less black in 1997. Much of the county is rural, and very supportive of gun rights.

The local police thought it was self defense, but Gricar pursued it, filing charges in 1996. He filed first degree murder charges, but the judge tossed that. The final charge was voluntary manslaughter. He lost the case, but he tried his best to win it. It was fairly obvious that no Centre County jury would convict a man of shooting someone who broke in, was a complete outsider, and had a known history of violence.

1997 was an election year. When RFG filed, he had no idea if he'd be facing opposition that year. From a political standpoint, it made no sense to try this case, and I've known DA's that did not try stronger cases. RFG still took it to court.

That is almost classic Atticus Finch territory. However, less than 15 months later, he didn't try Sandusky and for the next seven years, he neither prosecuted or investigated that case. That is the problem I see.

Here a a few articles about the Grove case:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1996_jan-dec/1996_oct/1996-10-21_the_daily_collegian/1996-10-21d01-001.htm

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1997/03/03-07-97tdc/03-07-97d01-014.htm

J. J. in Phila
04-01-2012, 12:11 AM
Woop!!

I remember when 'they', assume JS's lawyer and supporters, were putting out the rumor that his father and some friend were told a different story than MM told Paterno, Schultz and Curley.

Now here it turns out his father not only heard the same story but can testify that Schultz DID hear the same account from MM.

These people have lied so much they forgot who they lied to.

Schultz testified that he reported the 2002 incident to some child protective service. He could remember the person he talked to. He couldn't remember which service. None have a record of investigating it, or of it being reported.

Reader
04-01-2012, 12:21 AM
Schultz testified that he reported the 2002 incident to some child protective service. He could remember the person he talked to. He couldn't remember which service. None have a record of investigating it, or of it being reported.

Yep, I'm sure that's on the list of the 33 lies he and Curley are gonna face in court. Can't wait....

Reader
04-01-2012, 12:44 AM
I think this might explain the trouble I'm having about RFG's role in this.

About 15 months prior to the 1998 incident, RFG pressed the Grove case.

Grove was a local resident who shot a man that had repeatedly broken a trailer he owned; the man's name was Sampson. Sampson and his wife were his friends, but Sampson was accused of assaulting his wife. She was in a woman's shelter and Sampson had broken in to take his wife's possessions, without her permission.

Sampson was black and from Phila, very clearly an outsider; Grove was white and grew up in Centre County. Today the county is 3% black and I'd expect was less black in 1997. Much of the county is rural, and very supportive of gun rights.

The local police thought it was self defense, but Gricar pursued it, filing charges in 1996. He filed first degree murder charges, but the judge tossed that. The final charge was voluntary manslaughter. He lost the case, but he tried his best to win it. It was fairly obvious that no Centre County jury would convict a man of shooting someone who broke in, was a complete outsider, and had a known history of violence.

1997 was an election year. When RFG filed, he had no idea if he'd be facing opposition that year. From a political standpoint, it made no sense to try this case, and I've known DA's that did not try stronger cases. RFG still took it to court.

That is almost classic Atticus Finch territory. However, less than 15 months later, he didn't try Sandusky and for the next seven years, he neither prosecuted or investigated that case. That is the problem I see.

Here a a few articles about the Grove case:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1996_jan-dec/1996_oct/1996-10-21_the_daily_collegian/1996-10-21d01-001.htm

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1997/03/03-07-97tdc/03-07-97d01-014.htm

It really makes you wonder why he kept the Sandusky case under wraps. Who or what would have enough influence on him to cause him not to even investigate it more (discover more victims just as the GJ did), much less prosecute it. With the information we have now it seems to have been a winnable case that would have brought him a LOT of publicity and accolades for getting this predator stopped.

J. J. in Phila
04-01-2012, 06:10 AM
It really makes you wonder why he kept the Sandusky case under wraps. Who or what would have enough influence on him to cause him not to even investigate it more (discover more victims just as the GJ did), much less prosecute it. With the information we have now it seems to have been a winnable case that would have brought him a LOT of publicity and accolades for getting this predator stopped.

I agree with those who say there would be a backlash in 1998, but after Sandusky retired, it would be about where it is today.

There is another factor. DA's can petition to form grand juries to investigate. As far as we know, he didn't do that.

Tipstaff
04-01-2012, 08:10 PM
Hey, Pensfan...just because we're retired doesn't mean we're all 'mental' or THAT elderly, LOL!

What about the unemployed in Pa.? There are probably a lot of those that would not mind serving and even being out of the house for a while.

Since it's summer a lot of teachers and adult students might be available also.

This didn't work out so well in the Casey Anthony trial....they wanted to get to their vacations, baseball games and long summer weekends.

Rlaub44
04-02-2012, 06:46 PM
The Patriot-News' Sara Ganim wins another major journalism award for her work on the Sandusky investigation.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/patriot-news_reporter_sara_gan_3.html

StellarsJay
04-03-2012, 08:35 PM
There is stonewalling (Schultz) and there is caterwauling (Curley) and here are the particulars in a document cited by State College news:
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/curley-schultz-case-prosecution-asks-court-not-to-dismiss-perjury-charges-1038980/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/87830653/Commonwealth-s-Response-to-Bill-of-Particulars

J. J. in Phila
04-03-2012, 11:31 PM
The case against Schultz is the stronger of the two. I'm wondering if either Curley or Schultz might flip? I have the feeling that they might shed more light on a number of things.

StellarsJay
04-04-2012, 01:41 AM
In the prosecutors' Grand Jury quotes, I looked for this question, and they asked it, but they seem to have let Schultz skate on his answer:

Q. How is it that this agency, whis whatever it was, would even know who to talk to, to talk to McQueary or talk to you or talk to whoever? Who was supposed to relay this information?
A. I’m telling you , to the best of my recollection, I believe that the agency was asked to follow up on the information.
and he says:

As far as I know, the university asked the other agency to follow up on it as they did in 1998.

When Schultz says "we" and "the University" he must mean his own office or Spanier's. What other department could be involved? What did Spanier tell the Grand Jury that he knew and did? I hope this is what the new subpoenas are about.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87830653/Commonwealth-s-Response-to-Bill-of-Particulars

Reader
04-04-2012, 01:51 AM
This didn't work out so well in the Casey Anthony trial....they wanted to get to their vacations, baseball games and long summer weekends.

No no no no no, LOL

Not gonna accept that comparison...different state, crimes, suspect, prosecutors, victims, jurors....

I'm in Fl. and abhor what happened with that case but even with the publicity this one has had, there is no comparison to the craziness that went on with the Caylee case.

I'm going into this one with faith in the state's case and hopefully justice for the victims...may be illusions but let me keep them for now...

J. J. in Phila
04-04-2012, 08:35 AM
In the prosecutors' Grand Jury quotes, I looked for this question, and they asked it, but they seem to have let Schultz skate on his answer:

Q. How is it that this agency, whis whatever it was, would even know who to talk to, to talk to McQueary or talk to you or talk to whoever? Who was supposed to relay this information?
A. I’m telling you , to the best of my recollection, I believe that the agency was asked to follow up on the information.
and he says:

As far as I know, the university asked the other agency to follow up on it as they did in 1998.

When Schultz says "we" and "the University" he must mean his own office or Spanier's. What other department could be involved? What did Spanier tell the Grand Jury that he knew and did? I hope this is what the new subpoenas are about.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87830653/Commonwealth-s-Response-to-Bill-of-Particulars

I think Spanier was called after Schultz. Schultz's office supervised the University Police, the ones that still had the file from 1998. He implied that someone under his control reported it to this child service agency, yet he never told anyone else about it.

County CYS and DPW have no record of it; no police department has a report of it.

Hint: That's why the perjury case is stronger against Schultz. :)

J. J. in Phila
04-04-2012, 08:57 AM
Amendola may have a point about the conversation between Lauro, Schreffler, and Sandusky being inadmissible, unless Sandusky was given his Miranda warning.

Sandusky's now infamous admission to Victim 6's mother, with the two police listening in should be admissible, however.

They should be arguing these points tomorrow.

StellarsJay
04-04-2012, 02:23 PM
"Fight on State" In wake of scandal, power struggle spread from Penn State campus to state capital Updated: April 4, 2012, 9:11 AM ET By Don Van Natta Jr.
ESPN The Magazine
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7770996/in-wake-joe-paterno-death-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal-power-struggle-spread-penn-state-state-capital

A long article on the political manouvering of the scandal has some odd new bits with a different perspective that seems to be coming from the Paterno family side of the story:

"Corbett's office was already piqued about Penn State's knowledge of Sandusky's behavior during the 1998 investigation. McQueary's testimony about that night in 2002 before the grand jury now offered reasons to question university administrators. And, on Dec. 21, 2010, subpoenas were delivered to the office of Penn State general counsel Cynthia Baldwin seeking the grand jury appearances of Paterno, CFO and university police supervisor Schultz and AD Curley. Baldwin told Paterno of his subpoena nearly two weeks after she had received it and offered to accompany him to the grand jury, where she would be representing Curley and Schultz. Paterno declined the offer, telling her he'd get his own lawyer, sources say. Then Baldwin, who declined to comment for this story through Lanny Davis, a spokesman for Penn State's board of trustees, offered to write Paterno talking points for his testimony. The coach told her he would not need them."

and

"It was time. The Penn State football team had finished the 2004 season with a record of 4-7. The previous year, the Nittany Lions had gone 3-9. People had begun saying out loud what they had long been whispering: The game has passed Paterno by. The leaders of Penn State agreed that the coach, then 78, should retire.

Paterno would flirt with retirement every year but always return for another season.

Paterno had been thinking the same thing. And he had invited Spanier, Penn State chief financial officer Gary Schultz, athletic director Tim Curley and trustee Steve Garban to his house to discuss the possibility, sources say. But on the Sunday before Thanksgiving in 2004, as the men sat at Paterno's kitchen table nibbling on cookies, he instead announced he wasn't ready to go.

Referring to handwritten notes, Paterno told the men that his team had a run of blown calls and hard-luck injuries. He said it might be hard to believe, but next year's team was only a couple of impact players from a national championship. He told them he deserved the benefit of the doubt. "We are close," he said.

The men just looked at one another. Leaving had been Paterno's idea. "Hey, fellas," Paterno said, his voice rising, "I've raised more than $1 billion for this university -- in this kitchen. I'm not going anywhere. We'll get better."

Sure enough, the Nittany Lions enjoyed a resurgent 2005 season, finishing with a record of 11-1. As the accolades accumulated for the old coach's comeback, Paterno could not help telling reporters how Spanier and others had tried to force him out, while sitting at his kitchen table. "I said, 'Relax. Get off my backside,'" Paterno told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

For the university's leaders, the incident in the kitchen was a powerful reminder of Paterno's staying power. Every year after, he would flirt with retirement. Sometimes, he'd draw up a list of possible successors. (Urban Meyer topped it in 2011.) But after each season, Paterno changed his mind. The trustees resented Paterno's insistence that he'd decide on his successor. "It's not his decision," one said last summer. By then, many of them had lost patience with the old coach and could not wait for him to go."

J. J. in Phila
04-04-2012, 04:04 PM
More on the story, with local reaction: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/04/3151485/espn-report-corbett-decided-to.html#disqus_thread

ohiogirl
04-04-2012, 09:34 PM
"Fight on State" In wake of scandal, power struggle spread from Penn State campus to state capital Updated: April 4, 2012, 9:11 AM ET By Don Van Natta Jr.
ESPN The Magazine
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7770996/in-wake-joe-paterno-death-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal-power-struggle-spread-penn-state-state-capital

A long article on the political manouvering of the scandal has some odd new bits with a different perspective that seems to be coming from the Paterno family side of the story:

"Corbett's office was already piqued about Penn State's knowledge of Sandusky's behavior during the 1998 investigation. McQueary's testimony about that night in 2002 before the grand jury now offered reasons to question university administrators. And, on Dec. 21, 2010, subpoenas were delivered to the office of Penn State general counsel Cynthia Baldwin seeking the grand jury appearances of Paterno, CFO and university police supervisor Schultz and AD Curley. Baldwin told Paterno of his subpoena nearly two weeks after she had received it and offered to accompany him to the grand jury, where she would be representing Curley and Schultz. Paterno declined the offer, telling her he'd get his own lawyer, sources say. Then Baldwin, who declined to comment for this story through Lanny Davis, a spokesman for Penn State's board of trustees, offered to write Paterno talking points for his testimony. The coach told her he would not need them."

and

"It was time. The Penn State football team had finished the 2004 season with a record of 4-7. The previous year, the Nittany Lions had gone 3-9. People had begun saying out loud what they had long been whispering: The game has passed Paterno by. The leaders of Penn State agreed that the coach, then 78, should retire.

Paterno would flirt with retirement every year but always return for another season.

Paterno had been thinking the same thing. And he had invited Spanier, Penn State chief financial officer Gary Schultz, athletic director Tim Curley and trustee Steve Garban to his house to discuss the possibility, sources say. But on the Sunday before Thanksgiving in 2004, as the men sat at Paterno's kitchen table nibbling on cookies, he instead announced he wasn't ready to go.

Referring to handwritten notes, Paterno told the men that his team had a run of blown calls and hard-luck injuries. He said it might be hard to believe, but next year's team was only a couple of impact players from a national championship. He told them he deserved the benefit of the doubt. "We are close," he said.

The men just looked at one another. Leaving had been Paterno's idea. "Hey, fellas," Paterno said, his voice rising, "I've raised more than $1 billion for this university -- in this kitchen. I'm not going anywhere. We'll get better."

Sure enough, the Nittany Lions enjoyed a resurgent 2005 season, finishing with a record of 11-1. As the accolades accumulated for the old coach's comeback, Paterno could not help telling reporters how Spanier and others had tried to force him out, while sitting at his kitchen table. "I said, 'Relax. Get off my backside,'" Paterno told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

For the university's leaders, the incident in the kitchen was a powerful reminder of Paterno's staying power. Every year after, he would flirt with retirement. Sometimes, he'd draw up a list of possible successors. (Urban Meyer topped it in 2011.) But after each season, Paterno changed his mind. The trustees resented Paterno's insistence that he'd decide on his successor. "It's not his decision," one said last summer. By then, many of them had lost patience with the old coach and could not wait for him to go."

How does this relate?

ohiogirl
04-04-2012, 09:34 PM
Is this forum to discuss Joe Paterno or Jerry Sandusky?

StellarsJay
04-04-2012, 10:50 PM
Ohiogirl- my main interest was that Cynthia Baldwin, who seems to have let the GJ judge's assumption that she was representing Curley and Schultz stand so she could be allowed in to sit and listen, and later said she was never acting as their counsel, is shown here to be offering to represent Paterno and offering to assist in controlling his testimony. The source of the story is not given.

And there has been discussion on list of Paterno's power lying in his threat to stop fundraising.

Pensfan
04-04-2012, 11:41 PM
I think Spanier was called after Schultz. Schultz's office supervised the University Police, the ones that still had the file from 1998. He implied that someone under his control reported it to this child service agency, yet he never told anyone else about it.

County CYS and DPW have no record of it; no police department has a report of it.

Hint: That's why the perjury case is stronger against Schultz. :)
CYS in PA doesn't keep records after the child involved has reached the age of 21 (I think it is 21?) or 10 years after the report. This might be why CYS doesn't have any records.

Pensfan
04-04-2012, 11:48 PM
More on the story, with local reaction: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/04/3151485/espn-report-corbett-decided-to.html#disqus_thread
Thanks for posting that....I think. Ugh.

""And the governor said, 'I told them to do it.' He was proud of it. I told him, 'You don't realize what you have created here. The damage to Penn State is enormous.'"
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/04/3151485/espn-report-corbett-decided-to.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

Corbett knew for at least TWO-THREE YEARS that Sandusky was molesting/raping boys. Threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee years. Sickening! He should "fire" himself.

Rlaub44
04-04-2012, 11:49 PM
Ohiogirl- my main interest was that Cynthia Baldwin, who seems to have let the GJ judge's assumption that she was representing Curley and Schultz stand so she could be allowed in to sit and listen, and later said she was never acting as their counsel, is shown here to be offerring to represent Paterno and offering to assist in controlling his testimony. The source of the story is not given.

And there has been discussion on list of Paterno's power lying in his threat to stop fundraising.

I was especially disgusted to read that Baldwin was going to write talking points for Paterno, confirming that PSU administration wanted to control and coordinate the message.

If you are answering questions truthfully before the GJ, why do you need "talking points"?

Basically, it appears Paterno (and apparently McQueary) didn't go along with the Baldwin plan, opening Curley and Schultz up to perjury charges. There was definitely some conspiring going into the Grand Jury appearances, and ESPN's story seems to be pointing at Corbett as guiding the board's response after the charges were filed.

I wonder how different things would be had McQueary and Paterno toed the company line in their testimony? We probably wouldn't have the perjury charges, but would it have impacted any of the charges against Sandusky?

J. J. in Phila
04-05-2012, 12:07 AM
CYS in PA doesn't keep records after the child involved has reached the age of 21 (I think it is 21?) or 10 years after the report. This might be why CYS doesn't have any records.

They don't even have a reference to the complaint being made. Schultz can't identify the agency he talked to, supposedly. The University Police have no record of it.

J. J. in Phila
04-05-2012, 12:14 AM
Thanks for posting that....I think. Ugh.

""And the governor said, 'I told them to do it.' He was proud of it. I told him, 'You don't realize what you have created here. The damage to Penn State is enormous.'"
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/04/3151485/espn-report-corbett-decided-to.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

Corbett knew for at least TWO-THREE YEARS that Sandusky was molesting/raping boys. Threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee years. Sickening! He should "fire" himself.

They only discovered Victim 1 in 2009. They didn't find the other accounts until the late fall of 2010.

Look at the Grand Jury report. They have a slew of corroborative evidence on Victim 1. They spent most of the first year trying to track that down. They basically have only McQueary for Victim 2. They have a lot on Victim 6, but only because they found the report.

J. J. in Phila
04-05-2012, 12:19 AM
Basically, it appears Paterno (and apparently McQueary) didn't go along with the Baldwin plan, opening Curley and Schultz up to perjury charges. There was definitely some conspiring going into the Grand Jury appearances, and ESPN's story seems to be pointing at Corbett as guiding the board's response after the charges were filed.


Central Pennsylvania Gothic. :(


I wonder how different things would be had McQueary and Paterno toed the company line in their testimony? We probably wouldn't have the perjury charges, but would it have impacted any of the charges against Sandusky?

Image what this case would be if they didn't have McQueary or the 1998 report. If you note my other post, they didn't have that stuff until the fall of 2010.

J. J. in Phila
04-05-2012, 12:49 AM
Is this forum to discuss Joe Paterno or Jerry Sandusky?

Both, but not exclusively. It is basically about the case.

Pensfan
04-05-2012, 01:01 AM
Civil defense method "duck and cover" used by Corbett aka One Term Tommy. LOL
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/gov_tom_corbett_criticizes_esp.html

J. J. in Phila
04-05-2012, 01:09 AM
Several of the trustees say that they were not told to remove Paterno: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/05/3152377/trustees-corbett-fire-back.html

ThoughtFox
04-05-2012, 02:09 AM
Okay, so I've gone back to late-March when the 1998 story came out and gathered up links for the Media thread (2 long posts worth). I think we are pretty much up-to-date but if anyone notices something I overlooked, please post it there before more stuff hits the fan. :)

Penn State's Child Abuse Timeline/Media/Reference NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Pensfan
04-05-2012, 02:41 AM
I was especially disgusted to read that Baldwin was going to write talking points for Paterno, confirming that PSU administration wanted to control and coordinate the message.

If you are answering questions truthfully before the GJ, why do you need "talking points"?

Basically, it appears Paterno (and apparently McQueary) didn't go along with the Baldwin plan, opening Curley and Schultz up to perjury charges. There was definitely some conspiring going into the Grand Jury appearances, and ESPN's story seems to be pointing at Corbett as guiding the board's response after the charges were filed.

I wonder how different things would be had McQueary and Paterno toed the company line in their testimony? We probably wouldn't have the perjury charges, but would it have impacted any of the charges against Sandusky?
bbm
Watch a few of the last videos of Joe Pa. He had severe hearing loss and suffered from aphasia.
Joe Paterno Epic Funny Interview with Big Dog Steve Duemig - YouTube

J. J. in Phila
04-05-2012, 12:24 PM
Amendola conceded that the search warrant was legit:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/05/3152631/jerry-sandusky-due-in-court-for.html

He expects his motion to dismiss will be tossed, but he'll refile it later. The grand jury is still investigating, but they don't expect any new charges against Sandusky.

ThoughtFox
04-05-2012, 01:01 PM
4-5-2012: Another Court Appearance for Sandusky (http://wnep.com/2012/04/05/another-court-appearance-for-sandusky/)
Within 20 minutes the hearing was over and Jerry Sandusky was headed back home where he is under house arrest.
As the judge said, this is a case that is still in flux, meaning there is still an active grand jury investigation that could lead to even more charges.

4-5-2012: Grand Jury Probe Hampers Sandusky Pretrial Hearing (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/04/jerry-sandusky-appears-in-court-for-pre-trial-hearing/1?csp=34news)
Sandusky arrived at court dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and tie.
Lawyers in the courtroom in Bellefonte, Pa., are arguing over a number of issues, including whether items found by prosecutors in a search of Sandusky's home can be admitted into evidence.
Defense attorney Joe Amendola also has asked Pennsylvania Judge John Cleland to throw out some critical evidence gathered by prosecutors, including electronic intercepts of telephone conversations involving alleged victims and Sandusky.

Dr.Fessel
04-05-2012, 03:26 PM
This makes me smile.

Motions to suppress evidence were withdrawn, as the defense agreed search warrant and tapped phone calls were legal.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/jerry_sanduskys_lawyer_withdra.html

J. J. in Phila
04-05-2012, 03:32 PM
A video of the Courthouse Steps pressers: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/05/3152631_a3153000/jerry-sandusky-due-in-court-for.html

Loved the "litany of perversions" line.

Tipstaff
04-05-2012, 05:23 PM
ESPN Outside the Lines reporting on 4/4/12.....


In a previously unreleased and unread Nov. 8 statement obtained by ESPN’s Outside the Lines, the late Penn State coach Joe Paterno explained in detail the steps he took after learning from former assistant Mike McQueary about Jerry Sandusky’s alleged incident with a young boy in a locker room shower.

As the investigation became public, Paterno abruptly announced that he would hold a press conference during which he was expected to say he would retire at the end of the season. He said the university, essentially, had bigger concerns than his future. But before the press conference could happen, Paterno was ordered to cancel it. On Nov. 9, Paterno was fired, along with university president Graham Spanier.

Joe Paterno was fired by Penn State in November, and died just over two months later. (AP Photo)

In the statement, Paterno reiterated what he’d said in the Grand Jury report.

"Let me begin by offering Sue and my prayers for all of the people impacted by these events. I know it is small comfort given the circumstances. I also understand that there are a lot of questions regarding the events involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. However, because of the status of these ongoing legal matters, I will not speculate or answer questions about the charges or the people involved beyond this brief statement.

"... I know that there are many other questions that people want to ask, but I ask that we all be patient and give the judicial process time to do its deliberate work. Finding the truth is what will benefit the victims most of all, and that is who we should all keep in mind as we deal with this tragedy."

Outside The Lines also reports that the Paterno family and the board are fighting over the $4.5 million payment that remained from Paterno’s last contract, including a $3 million retirement bonus. Also, the family is considering suing the university for wrongful termination.


Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-04-04/joe-paterno-penn-state-statement-press-conference-fired-board-espn-outside-lines

strawberry
04-05-2012, 06:46 PM
A video of the Courthouse Steps pressers: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/05/3152631_a3153000/jerry-sandusky-due-in-court-for.html

Loved the "litany of perversions" line.

IMO Amendola is taking his cues from Jose Baez and playing out the trial in the press instead of in the courtroom just like the prosecutor said. He filed those motions to get the press there, so he could then withdraw them and have a ready-made press audience to spread his word to the jury pool. Jose Baez 101. IMO. It's not going to work though. I hope.

BigCat
04-05-2012, 07:26 PM
ESPN Outside the Lines reporting on 4/4/12.....


In a previously unreleased and unread Nov. 8 statement obtained by ESPN’s Outside the Lines, the late Penn State coach Joe Paterno explained in detail the steps he took after learning from former assistant Mike McQueary about Jerry Sandusky’s alleged incident with a young boy in a locker room shower.

As the investigation became public, Paterno abruptly announced that he would hold a press conference during which he was expected to say he would retire at the end of the season. He said the university, essentially, had bigger concerns than his future. But before the press conference could happen, Paterno was ordered to cancel it. On Nov. 9, Paterno was fired, along with university president Graham Spanier.

Joe Paterno was fired by Penn State in November, and died just over two months later. (AP Photo)

In the statement, Paterno reiterated what he’d said in the Grand Jury report.

"Let me begin by offering Sue and my prayers for all of the people impacted by these events. I know it is small comfort given the circumstances. I also understand that there are a lot of questions regarding the events involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. However, because of the status of these ongoing legal matters, I will not speculate or answer questions about the charges or the people involved beyond this brief statement.

"... I know that there are many other questions that people want to ask, but I ask that we all be patient and give the judicial process time to do its deliberate work. Finding the truth is what will benefit the victims most of all, and that is who we should all keep in mind as we deal with this tragedy."

Outside The Lines also reports that the Paterno family and the board are fighting over the $4.5 million payment that remained from Paterno’s last contract, including a $3 million retirement bonus. Also, the family is considering suing the university for wrongful termination.


Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-04-04/joe-paterno-penn-state-statement-press-conference-fired-board-espn-outside-lines

The question shouldn't be why was Paterno fired. It should be why was an 85 year old man who was two months from dying the head coach in the first place. There's no way a frail old man would be a head coach at any other major college football program. I'm learning to just chalk up such oddities to Central Pennsylvania Gothic.

Pensfan
04-05-2012, 07:31 PM
Prosecution’s testimonies are estimated to last less than 2 weeks.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/video_pennsylvania_senior_depu.html

J. J. in Phila
04-05-2012, 10:18 PM
The question shouldn't be why was Paterno fired. It should be why was an 85 year old man who was two months from dying the head coach in the first place. There's no way a frail old man would be a head coach at any other major college football program. I'm learning to just chalk up such oddities to Central Pennsylvania Gothic.

Well, first, they didn't know he was dying.

Second, the simple answers are:

1. He wanted to.

2. He raised $$$$$$$$ for the school.

StellarsJay
04-05-2012, 11:20 PM
"Outside The Lines also reports that the Paterno family and the board are fighting over the $4.5 million payment that remained from Paterno’s last contract, including a $3 million retirement bonus. Also, the family is considering suing the university for wrongful termination."
Did they fire him in part to avoid giving him the retirement bonus- not that it probably seemed like that much, but they were too mad at him to give it to him? When was that contract signed? Was it five years ago so he hadn't taken the bribe to leave when they thought he would, but still was entitled to the money?
Intersting that Surma, the guy who was fronting for the Board is the head of United Steel. Somebody tougher and more independent than the people Paterno was used to dealing with.

BigCat
04-06-2012, 12:36 AM
"Outside The Lines also reports that the Paterno family and the board are fighting over the $4.5 million payment that remained from Paterno’s last contract, including a $3 million retirement bonus. Also, the family is considering suing the university for wrongful termination."
Did they fire him in part to avoid giving him the retirement bonus- not that it probably seemed like that much, but they were too mad at him to give it to him? When was that contract signed? Was it five years ago so he hadn't taken the bribe to leave when they thought he would, but still was entitled to the money?
Intersting that Surma, the guy who was fronting for the Board is the head of United Steel. Somebody tougher and more independent than the people Paterno was used to dealing with.

Football coaches are required to hold two press conferences a week: one during mid-week and one directly after a game. Do all those Penn State football fans bashing the board and "One-Term Tommy" really believe it would have been in the best interest of the university for Paterno to be answering questions? I think it was a wise decision to remove Paterno and, IMO, there was nothing malicious about it. The board had no other choice.

I can't answer your financial questions. However, I can say that PSU athletics is big business, so I doubt the board based any of its decisions over a few million dollars. I could be wrong, though.

Pensfan
04-06-2012, 02:47 AM
Football coaches are required to hold two press conferences a week: one during mid-week and one directly after a game. Do all those Penn State football fans bashing the board and "One-Term Tommy" really believe it would have been in the best interest of the university for Paterno to be answering questions? I think it was a wise decision to remove Paterno and, IMO, there was nothing malicious about it. The board had no other choice.

I can't answer your financial questions. However, I can say that PSU athletics is big business, so I doubt the board based any of its decisions over a few million dollars. I could be wrong, though.
I am one of those bashing One-Term Tommy. Some of the anger from the Tommy bashers doesn't stem from Joe Pa’s termination. Mine stems from the very long Grand Jury investigation that was occurring at a snail's pace while Jerry the Perv was molesting boys and looking for more boys. The AG knew enough about child molesters to see Jerry's unusual behaviors as dangerous. I don't know that the BOT and the BOT at TSM were this knowledgeable about child pervs (except for Raykovitz and his wife).

Even though Tommy was the AG and was legally not allowed to leak Grand Jury info, IMO, he had a moral duty to warn others to try to prevent Jerry’s from raping more boys. One-Term Tommy should have found some sneaky way to indirectly threaten Raykovitz and warn the satellite campus football programs’ coordinators/high school coaches that Jerry was a perv. One measure he could have implemented would have been to secretly get Jerry’s name placed on PA Childline.

This action wouldn't completely stop Jerry, a determined preferential child molester, but it would have slowed him because he looked for his latest prey in school programs which are supposed to check Childline for their staff and volunteers' names.

J. J. in Phila
04-06-2012, 09:12 AM
Big story in the CDT: The grand jury is still investigating something.

They said yesterday it was not Sandusky: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/06/3153670/attorneys-trade-barbs.html#disqus_thread

J. J. in Phila
04-09-2012, 10:37 AM
The judge just ordered the attorneys to stop talking about the case: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/09/3156650/judge-in-jerry-sandusky-case-orders.html

That might help the defense; Amendola can't keep talking. ;)

J. J. in Phila
04-09-2012, 10:50 AM
Even though Tommy was the AG and was legally not allowed to leak Grand Jury info, IMO, he had a moral duty to warn others to try to prevent Jerry’s from raping more boys. One-Term Tommy should have found some sneaky way to indirectly threaten Raykovitz and warn the satellite campus football programs’ coordinators/high school coaches that Jerry was a perv. One measure he could have implemented would have been to secretly get Jerry’s name placed on PA Childline.



I think Sandusky was on Childline, before the grand jury leak. He tried for a volunteer at a college in Huntington, and it came up.

J. J. in Phila
04-09-2012, 11:37 AM
Copy of the order linked here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/09/3156661/pa-judge-limits-lawyer-comments.html#wgt=rcntnews

It applied to the attorneys and investigators.

StellarsJay
04-09-2012, 12:29 PM
First one to make a public statement is Rominger: "It's all about Me."

What triggered the court order? Both defence and prosecution brought up the ongoing Grand Jury. Was this to gag any more leaks about it?

J. J. in Phila
04-09-2012, 02:13 PM
First one to make a public statement is Rominger: "It's all about Me."

What triggered the court order? Both defence and prosecution brought up the ongoing Grand Jury. Was this to gag any more leaks about it?

It was that both attorneys spoke longer after the last hearing than they spent in the hearing.

Pensfan
04-09-2012, 02:37 PM
I think Sandusky was on Childline, before the grand jury leak. He tried for a volunteer at a college in Huntington, and it came up.
Wow. I wonder what year he went on Childline. 1998? 2002?

Good ol' Dr. Raykovitz, the Ph.D. child psychologist, possessed the knowledge that at-risk children (like those served at TSM) are more likely to become prey for pervs. He should have required a Childline check on EVERYONE volunteering at the organization he operated. Hmmmm. I wonder if TSM checked other volunteers, but not Jerry. Maybe Jerry was checked, but it didn't make a difference to those operating and receiving their large paychecks from TSM.

Hello, Sara?????? Please investigate this!

Pensfan
04-09-2012, 02:40 PM
Big story in the CDT: The grand jury is still investigating something.

They said yesterday it was not Sandusky: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/06/3153670/attorneys-trade-barbs.html#disqus_thread
What is your guess on what or whom is still under investigation? TIA


Copy of the order linked here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/09/3156661/pa-judge-limits-lawyer-comments.html#wgt=rcntnews

It applied to the attorneys and investigators.

I hope this wasn't ordered so that a deal can be quietly worked out for Jerry with the finished details to be slapped upon the residents of PA (who have to live near this &*#$% for 30 more years). Ugh.

J. J. in Phila
04-09-2012, 03:48 PM
What is your guess on what or whom is still under investigation? TIA


We know that the grand jury was looking at several things:

1. Spanier's role.

2. What happened when the case was sent to the DA's Office.

It could either of those.

There have been suggestions that the FBI is looking at payoffs involving Penn State and Second Mile, so that is also a possibility.


I hope this wasn't ordered so that a deal can be quietly worked out for Jerry with the finished details to be slapped upon the residents of PA (who have to live near this &*#$% for 30 more years). Ugh.

So long as Sandusky can do no harm, I wouldn't care.

ThoughtFox
04-09-2012, 04:11 PM
It was that both attorneys spoke longer after the last hearing than they spent in the hearing.

God, that's so true! :floorlaugh:

I'm glad they have to shush now. :shush:

J. J. in Phila
04-09-2012, 04:21 PM
Wow. I wonder what year he went on Childline. 1998? 2002?


Probably 2009, when the investigation began.

Reader
04-09-2012, 11:50 PM
What is your guess on what or whom is still under investigation? TIA




I hope this wasn't ordered so that a deal can be quietly worked out for Jerry with the finished details to be slapped upon the residents of PA (who have to live near this &*#$% for 30 more years). Ugh.

Even with a plea deal JS would still get some prison time wouldn't he?

IIRC the public lewdness charges have a sentence of 5 years each.

I can't imagine that the state would allow a plea deal without a substantial sentence.

Pensfan
04-10-2012, 01:46 AM
Even with a plea deal JS would still get some prison time wouldn't he?

IIRC the public lewdness charges have a sentence of 5 years each.

I can't imagine that the state would allow a plea deal without a substantial sentence.
Everything in this case has been unimaginable; prepare for an unimaginable plea deal. :( I fear a plea deal for Jerry will consist of a very short sentence, mandatory counseling bs, and a short-lived discussion about Depo-Provera injections.

It has been positively concluded from numerous scientific studies that Depo-Provera shots and counseling do NOT alter the sexual behavior of pedophiles that:
-deny the perpetration of the offense,
-admit the perpetration, but refuse to take responsibility for their behavior (blame it on drugs, alcohol, stress, bad marriage, and etc...),
-become violent when angry or when they must satisfy their need for power

Jerry fits into one of those categories if not two or three of them. Counseling will not "fix" Jerry's sexual orientation. He will never submit himself for a Depo-Provera injection claiming he has too many health contraindications. The prosecution should not offer to work with Jerry on a plea deal. He needs to stay in prison a looooooooong time.

J. J. in Phila
04-10-2012, 02:23 AM
Even with a plea deal JS would still get some prison time wouldn't he?

IIRC the public lewdness charges have a sentence of 5 years each.

I can't imagine that the state would allow a plea deal without a substantial sentence.

It would be the open lewdness clause under Unlawful Contact with Minor in regard to Victim 6, :) but you are correct, it's five years per charge. He's charged with four counts, but I'd expect that it would just be one one count. One corruption/endangerment charges, it's a maximum of 2 years each. In theory, with just Victim 6, if he'd convicted on all counts for that one, it would be a maximum of 34 years consecutive. I'd really expect to end up with one felony, two misdemeanors, concurrently, for that victim, so maybe 18-24 months, if convicted.

One of the ex-priest in the Phila case took a deal and turned state's evidence. He got 2 1/2 to 5, but I'm told that, with good behavior, he'll be out in 20 months, and he plead guilty to "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse" which could bring a 40 year sentence, and endangerment (two year, misdemeanor).

Reader
04-10-2012, 03:19 AM
SO....WHO would JS testify against for the state to get a plea deal?

Tipstaff
04-10-2012, 07:48 AM
SO....WHO would JS testify against for the state to get a plea deal?

Back to the old familiar 'follow the money' aspect if Sandusky gets a plea deal.

So what does Sandusky know and who can he blackmail to keep silent and get the deal?

Pensfan
04-10-2012, 09:42 AM
We will soon find out how much the big money in Pennsylvania wants Jerry's case to avoid more publicity/embarrassing PA by not going to trial. Jerry may be offered a deal if he agrees to plead guilty to one of the lesser charges. If this bs occurs, it will be described as "a merciful action which was necessary to prevent re-traumatizing the young men" rather than an action to prevent more negative publicity. Phew!

J. J. in Phila
04-10-2012, 10:27 AM
SO....WHO would JS testify against for the state to get a plea deal?

Well, he wouldn't necessarily have to testify against anyone, though he could name people at PSU or TSM. He could agree to 10-15 year sentence on several of the charges, but have the bulk dropped, and just save the Commonwealth the expense of the trial.

You have two victims, at least, where the case is very strong, Victims 1 and 6. There is at least some corroboration to both and there is a victim; Sandusky either admitted to his acts or there are witnesses to his unusual contact.

Victim 2 has a witness, but there is no victim.

Except for Victim 8, the others have a victim, but no witnesses. One of the others may have a witness, but I'd have to check.

Victim 8 has no victim and no direct witnesses.

I could easily see giving up Victim 8; I'd even have a hard time convicting on that one. Victims 3, 4, 5, 7, are, basically, the victim's word against Sandusky. I could easily see pleading to the felony with Victim 1, the misdemeanors with Victim 6 and possibly Victim 2, and maybe getting out by 2020.

The thing is, when he gets out, he'd be on Megan's List, and nobody will let him near children.

Pensfan
04-10-2012, 11:45 AM
Well, he wouldn't necessarily have to testify against anyone, though he could name people at PSU or TSM. He could agree to 10-15 year sentence on several of the charges, but have the bulk dropped, and just save the Commonwealth the expense of the trial.

You have two victims, at least, where the case is very strong, Victims 1 and 6. There is at least some corroboration to both and there is a victim; Sandusky either admitted to his acts or there are witnesses to his unusual contact.

Victim 2 has a witness, but there is no victim.

Except for Victim 8, the others have a victim, but no witnesses. One of the others may have a witness, but I'd have to check.

Victim 8 has no victim and no direct witnesses.

I could easily see giving up Victim 8; I'd even have a hard time convicting on that one. Victims 3, 4, 5, 7, are, basically, the victim's word against Sandusky. I could easily see pleading to the felony with Victim 1, the misdemeanors with Victim 6 and possibly Victim 2, and maybe getting out by 2020.

The thing is, when he gets out, he'd be on Megan's List, and nobody will let him near children.
Nobody has to let him near their children. Most children have computer access and too many parents aren't watching their online activities.

He may decided to go on bimonthly vacations to countries where children are openly sold.

In addition, other pedos will invite him to their pedo sites and sell him their videos. This will not be as gratifying to Jerry, but he won't be able to change his sexual orientation. He will "adapt" and he will still be dangerous.

J. J. in Phila
04-10-2012, 12:18 PM
Nobody has to let him near their children. Most children have computer access and too many parents aren't watching their online activities.


You can ban him from using a computer as part of his parole, or keep it tightly monitored.


He may decided to go on bimonthly vacations to countries where children are openly sold.


Not without a passport.

I really don't care how might time Sandusky gets; I do care if he has access to children. As long as he can't hurt anyone else, I'd regard that as a victory for the AG (not to mention the rest of us).

pinktoes
04-10-2012, 01:42 PM
I'm trying to find that info about Corbett's campaign contributions and Second Mile. Seems like it was on a site like CasablancaPa.

Can anyone help? And is that site a reliable source?

J. J. in Phila
04-10-2012, 05:45 PM
I'm trying to find that info about Corbett's campaign contributions and Second Mile. Seems like it was on a site like CasablancaPa.

Can anyone help? And is that site a reliable source?

There may me a site called "Open Secrets." I know they do national elections.

If yo check, you will discover, that for the first time since 1990, I did not contribute to a candidate for governor.

Reader
04-10-2012, 07:36 PM
Nobody has to let him near their children. Most children have computer access and too many parents aren't watching their online activities.

He may decided to go on bimonthly vacations to countries where children are openly sold.

In addition, other pedos will invite him to their pedo sites and sell him their videos. This will not be as gratifying to Jerry, but he won't be able to change his sexual orientation. He will "adapt" and he will still be dangerous.

Agree...we read and post links everyday to this forum about re-offenders...they never change....just read the thread on the priest scandal.

I for one just find it hard to believe that the AG has gone thru 3 years of the GJ, and is still investigating, and gotten this close to trial, to just accept a plea deal unless it is for most of the charges and a lot of years for JS. We don't really know what evidence and witnesses they have found since the GJ report back in Nov. I say go for it and put him in prison for at least as long as he has been abusing children....15 years documented, probably since he was a teenager/young adult.

The AG and the rest of the people working on this know as we do that he will continue to groom and abuse children as long as he can get away with it. These people are adept at skirting the rules and doing as they like. Remember, he had most of PSU, the town, TSM and a bunch of hometown people fooled for over 30 years. He's slick....and evil under that 'aw shucks' sham exterior.

Reader
04-10-2012, 07:53 PM
Sandusky Judge Issues Gag Order; Lawyerin’ Joe Amendola Will Have To Keep His Lawyerin’ At A Dull Roar

Of course, the gag order is really about only one guy: Sandusky's attorney, Lawyerin' Joe Amendola, Esq. I have to say, I'll miss his particular brand of lawyerin'. He was a comic artist—the straight man who also got the funny lines. He was what Margaret Dumont was to the Marx Brothers movies, except he was Harpo Marx, too. (Or better yet: He was both Gallagher and the melon.) Watching him work was like watching a guy trying to find a new way to stuff his head up his ***. When he talked, kazoo sounds came out of his mouth.

http://deadspin.com/5900294/sandusky-judge-issues-gag-order-lawyerin-joe-amendola-will-have-to-keep-his-lawyerin-to-a-dull-roar?tag=jerry-sandusky

Reader
04-10-2012, 08:13 PM
Sandusky defense tab totals $200,000 so far

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-09/jerry-sandusky-trial/54159048/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomNation-TopStories+%28News+-+Nation+-+Top+Stories%29

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. – Jerry Sandusky's defense against child sex-abuse charges has cost an estimated $200,000 so far, and his lawyer said uncertain financial resources have caused the defense team to forego psychological testing of the former Penn State University assistant football coach as his trial approaches in June.

That's OK, we already know ye, Jer..

Five months after a Pennsylvania grand jury outlined the first charges against Sandusky, attorney Joe Amendola told USA TODAY that financial considerations also have limited defense investigations into the backgrounds of Sandusky's eight known accusers.

So sad, too bad...

Amendola said his client has "cashed out" his retirement account and is drawing on a insurance policy from the Second Mile, the organization he founded to assist at-risk children, to help pay for his defense.

Boohoo, sob, sob....

"This case screams for a team of lawyers and investigators — a team of specialists," Amendola said.

Instead, he said, Sandusky is spending his days sequestered under house arrest calling potential witnesses "who will be helpful" to the defense. Some days, Amendola said, Sandusky calls him "15 times a day" relaying information or posing questions.

Better you than me, Joe...sure you got all the answers and spins...

Christopher Mallios, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, said Amendola "squandered" an opportunity to learn more about the victims and the government's case when he waived the preliminary hearing back in December, where the state is required to offer evidence to support a prosecution.

"If they haven't been able to do full background investigations, that falls squarely on his shoulders," Mallios said.

He and Jer were scared of them FACTS gettin' out...

More at link....

J. J. in Phila
04-12-2012, 05:05 PM
The judge declined to toss any charges:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/04/12/3160408/judge-refuses-to-toss-charges.html

Trino
04-12-2012, 06:44 PM
Just gotta feel sorry for JS's wife.

SurfieTX
04-13-2012, 07:46 AM
Former Pennsylvania State University football coach Jerry Sandusky is drawing on funds from an organization he set up for at-risk children to pay his defense fees.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/12/jerry-sandusky-uses-child-charitys-insurance-policy-to-pay-defense-bills/#ixzz1rv6t2UUS

J. J. in Phila
04-13-2012, 09:40 AM
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/12/jerry-sandusky-uses-child-charitys-insurance-policy-to-pay-defense-bills/#ixzz1rv6t2UUS

Old news and a bit misleading. He is covered, presumably, under the liability insurance of Second Mile. He has made a claim under the policy.

Tipstaff
04-13-2012, 04:03 PM
Sandusky defense tab totals $200,000 so far

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-09/jerry-sandusky-trial/54159048/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomNation-TopStories+%28News+-+Nation+-+Top+Stories%29

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. – Jerry Sandusky's defense against child sex-abuse charges has cost an estimated $200,000 so far, and his lawyer said uncertain financial resources have caused the defense team to forego psychological testing of the former Penn State University assistant football coach as his trial approaches in June.

That's OK, we already know ye, Jer..

Five months after a Pennsylvania grand jury outlined the first charges against Sandusky, attorney Joe Amendola told USA TODAY that financial considerations also have limited defense investigations into the backgrounds of Sandusky's eight known accusers.

So sad, too bad...

Amendola said his client has "cashed out" his retirement account and is drawing on a insurance policy from the Second Mile, the organization he founded to assist at-risk children, to help pay for his defense.

Boohoo, sob, sob....

"This case screams for a team of lawyers and investigators — a team of specialists," Amendola said.

Instead, he said, Sandusky is spending his days sequestered under house arrest calling potential witnesses "who will be helpful" to the defense. Some days, Amendola said, Sandusky calls him "15 times a day" relaying information or posing questions.

Better you than me, Joe...sure you got all the answers and spins...

Christopher Mallios, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, said Amendola "squandered" an opportunity to learn more about the victims and the government's case when he waived the preliminary hearing back in December, where the state is required to offer evidence to support a prosecution.

"If they haven't been able to do full background investigations, that falls squarely on his shoulders," Mallios said.

He and Jer were scared of them FACTS gettin' out...

More at link....

I believe this is Amendola's first step at having Sandusky declared indigent and having the state of Pennsylvania pay for his defense.

StellarsJay
04-13-2012, 09:11 PM
With all the corollary damage in the Victim 2 case, especially to McQueary, it's hard to think of that one being dropped.

StellarsJay
04-13-2012, 09:18 PM
Former PSU president Spanier lands job in national security for unidentified agency.

"A Penn State spokeswoman confirmed on Wednesday that Spanier, who is listed in the university's online directory as president emeritus, took on the project during a year-long sabbatical from his post as a tenured professor in Penn State's College of Health and Human Development.

"The project is an effort to continue to bridge the gap between our nation's national security agencies and other entities," said Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers."

Former PSU president Spanier lands job in national security - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_790888.html#ixzz1ryP1iCwR

J. J. in Phila
04-13-2012, 10:06 PM
With all the corollary damage in the Victim 2 case, especially to McQueary, it's hard to think of that one being dropped.



If Amendola trots Victim 2 into court, and he says, "Nothing happened," that charge evaporates.

Rlaub44
04-14-2012, 03:39 PM
If Amendola trots Victim 2 into court, and he says, "Nothing happened," that charge evaporates.

True, and so far, prosecutors haven't even indicated that they know the identity of Victim 2, to be able to prepare to impeach if that occurs.

At first, I wondered why they couldn't just check Second Mile records for the date in question; then I decided that Sandusky probably didn't keep "scheduled appointments" like other counselors at the agency would have had to when they met with clients.

We can only hope that Victim 2 has been located and is on board; otherwise, I agree that those charges could be in jeopardy.

J. J. in Phila
04-14-2012, 04:30 PM
True, and so far, prosecutors haven't even indicated that they know the identity of Victim 2, to be able to prepare to impeach if that occurs.

At first, I wondered why they couldn't just check Second Mile records for the date in question; then I decided that Sandusky probably didn't keep "scheduled appointments" like other counselors at the agency would have had to when they met with clients.

We can only hope that Victim 2 has been located and is on board; otherwise, I agree that those charges could be in jeopardy.


I'm not thrilled about the possibility, but we could see a lot of not guilty verdicts and/or dismissed charges.

StellarsJay
04-15-2012, 12:28 PM
Rlaub44-- Second Mile couldn't find "some files" in storage from 2000 to 2003 and then found files from one unspecified year of that period "misfiled." Could this help the insurance company avoid responsibility?

Tipstaff says: "I believe this is Amendola's first step at having Sandusky declared indigent and having the state of Pennsylvania pay for his defense."
What kind of limits are there on legal aid lawyerin' fees? More than nothing but less than lucrative?

Rlaub44
04-15-2012, 02:45 PM
Rlaub44-- Second Mile couldn't find "some files" in storage from 2000 to 2003 and then found files from one unspecified year of that period "misfiled." Could this help the insurance company avoid responsibility?


Snipped by me:


One thing about the Second Mile is that from what I can find, unlike many other social service agencies, they don't appear to bill Medical Assistance for services.


Because of this, there would be far less documentation maintained outside of their own offices, which certainly allows more freedom for records to be lost, unaccounted for, etc. If they had billed MA through one of the local Managed Care Organizations (such as Community Care Behavioral Health), there would be a very thorough paper trail of every contact that a Second Mile worker had with each client, with date, time, and guardian signature.


My layperson's guess about your question would be that Amendola would argue, and probably rightly so, that Sandusky gained access to the victims in his official capacity as a Second Mile employee/volunteer/ambassador, etc.; and therefore any liability incurred should be covered.

J. J. in Phila
04-15-2012, 04:02 PM
Pinktoes caught it on it on another thread. Gricar had a meeting with Sloan (ADA), Schreffler, Ganter (another assistant coach) and Ralston on 10/13/98. Ralston was the State College police officer involved in the "sting." This was more than four months after the case was closed.

Rlaub44
04-15-2012, 04:42 PM
Pinktoes caught it on it on another thread. Gricar had a meeting with Sloan (ADA), Schreffler, Ganter (another assistant coach) and Ralston on 10/13/98. Ralston was the State College police officer involved in the "sting." This was more than four months after the case was closed.


We haven't heard whether or not Fran Ganter testified before the grand jury, have we? He was the long-time offensive coordinator who now serves as an assistant athletic director at Penn State. In fact, he was the one who was tasked with delivering the note to Paterno's house containing the phone number Joe was to call to be terminated.

I am now very curious about the subject of the October meeting, when Schreffler was to take Ralston, Sloane and Gricar to the football building, apparently to meet with Ganter.

J. J. in Phila
04-15-2012, 04:55 PM
We haven't heard whether or not Fran Ganter testified before the grand jury, have we? He was the long-time offensive coordinator who now serves as an assistant athletic director at Penn State. In fact, he was the one who was tasked with delivering the note to Paterno's house containing the phone number Joe was to call to be terminated.

I am now very curious about the subject of the October meeting, when Schreffler was to take Ralston, Sloane and Gricar to the football building, apparently to meet with Ganter.

I believe that there is a good chance that this involved the Sandusky case.

pinktoes
04-16-2012, 10:50 AM
I know you have to consider the source when you read things, but so far all I've found about ganter and JS is this retweet (originally by SportsByBrooks):

"In addition to testifying to Grand Jury, I can confirm Tom Bradley & Fran Ganter have met w/ investigators about Sandusky."
Retweeted by Gina Daly

http://twitter.com/#!/2818jm

J. J. in Phila
04-16-2012, 12:24 PM
I know you have to consider the source when you read things, but so far all I've found about ganter and JS is this retweet (originally by SportsByBrooks):

"In addition to testifying to Grand Jury, I can confirm Tom Bradley & Fran Ganter have met w/ investigators about Sandusky."
Retweeted by Gina Daly

http://twitter.com/#!/2818jm

I think that this is probably correct.