Pedophile Ring Investigation by FBI and US Postal Service

J. J. in Phila · Aug 11, 2012

Reader said:
To me and also according to Freeh, it's not what they did, it's what they did not do. Although the 98 case was investigated by other agencies and no charges filed, the PSU staff involved had a responsibility to talk to JS as his employer/supervisors about his behavior and ban him from bringing children to the facilities.

I know. That is my point. It wasn't difficult to do the right thing in 2001, but they didn't do it.

I think this is what scared them in 2001, the public finding out they had still let him have free rein at the school with kids after 98 and even after he retired, which had led to the current event.

Why? They'd get to point point the finger at RFG and DPW. The kicker was, Gricar was facing a contested primary, that he didn't do particularly well in, about 6 weeks later. If it came out before that, he might not have won.

WHY, to me and again to Freeh, they just did not care..."total disregard for the welfare of the children" (close)....these were 2nd Mile kids, might as well say 2nd class, IOW, not mine and nobody they wanted to get involved with or felt responsible for.

They were fine, including Paterno, until 2/26/01, then something changed. Paterno reported to Curley the next day after McQueary told him. Curley and Schultz were on it that night.

J. J. in Phila · Aug 11, 2012

It was Schreffler, not Hamron.

Rlaub44 said:
I worry that we are only so certain about what they should have done in 98 based on hindsight now. At the time, they weren't involved in the investigation at all, except the information that was shared with Schultz by Sandusky's former neighbor, Harmon.

They had two victims, and three witnesses to Sandusky's admission; two of them were cops. The ADA that handled child abuse cases was removed from the case.

At the conclusion, they were told that there was no evidence of criminal behavior, and that DPW was closing their case as well.

According to DPW, they never saw the Chambers Report.

Harmon told them that Sandusky was instructed not to shower with young boys, and that he had apologized and was emotional about it. Harmon expressed that he felt the matter had been appropriately investigated, and hoped the matter was behind them.

Schreffler wanted to press charges. Harmon wasn't involved.

If that was all we ever knew, I don't think so many people would expect his employers to determine that it wasn't just a case of poor judgment like the professionals thought, and that they should impose sanctions against him.

Snipped. I'm not sure who you are talking about in this.

BigCat · Aug 11, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
I know. That is my point. It wasn't difficult to do the right thing in 2001, but they didn't do it.

Why? They'd get to point point the finger at RFG and DPW. The kicker was, Gricar was facing a contested primary, that he didn't do particularly well in, about 6 weeks later. If it came out before that, he might not have won.

They were fine, including Paterno, until 2/26/01, then something changed. Paterno reported to Curley the next day after McQueary told him. Curley and Schultz were on it that night.

These are all valid points that I attempted to address in the 2001 Coverup thread. But let's bring in back on topic. Where is there any evidence that the 2001 coverup was related to a pedophile ring?

J. J. in Phila · Aug 11, 2012

BigCat said:
These are all valid points that I attempted to address in the 2001 Coverup thread. But let's bring in back on topic. Where is there any evidence that the 2001 coverup was related to a pedophile ring?

None, but there is about as much evidence that it was to protect the football program. Yet it did happen.

I get the feeling we're missing something.

Rlaub44 · Aug 12, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
It was Schreffler, not Hamron.

They had two victims, and three witnesses to Sandusky's admission; two of them were cops. The ADA that handled child abuse cases was removed from the case.

According to DPW, they never saw the Chambers Report.

Schreffler wanted to press charges. Harmon wasn't involved.

Snipped. I'm not sure who you are talking about in this.

See exhibit 2D. Harmon was the one communicating with Schultz via email, keeping him informed about the status of the investigation. As far as I can tell, Schreffler never spoke to the PSU officials. And IIRC, Harmon was the go-between who told Schreffler that Gricar wasn't going to pursue charges.

I was replying to Reader's post that he (and Freeh) felt that Paterno et al should have spoken to Sandusky and banned him from bringing children onto the premises. We all agree that the police, the DA, and DPW could have done more in 98; my argument is that people are judging the University staff based on the totality of what we now know, not based only on what information they had in 98.

Sorry that we are getting off-topic.

J. J. in Phila · Aug 12, 2012

Rlaub44 said:
See exhibit 2D. Harmon was the one communicating with Schultz via email, keeping him informed about the status of the investigation. As far as I can tell, Schreffler never spoke to the PSU officials. And IIRC, Harmon was the go-between who told Schreffler that Gricar wasn't going to pursue charges.

Harmon wasn't the investigator and didn't talk to anyone in the DA's Office or at DPW. Schreffler reported to Harmon, who was his superior, but also had contact with Arnold (initially), Gricar (later) and Lauro.

I was replying to Reader's post that he (and Freeh) felt that Paterno et al should have spoken to Sandusky and banned him from bringing children onto the premises. We all agree that the police, the DA, and DPW could have done more in 98; my argument is that people are judging the University staff based on the totality of what we now know, not based only on what information they had in 98.

Sorry that we are getting off-topic.

I agree that it would have been difficult for PSU officials to ban Sandusky in 1998, especially since there were no criminal charges and no unfavorable findings from DPW. I do disagree with that aspect of the Freeh report.

I do wonder is there was a Pedophile Ring, however, that was powerful, why didn't stop the investigation them?

BigCat · Aug 12, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
None, but there is about as much evidence that it was to protect the football program. Yet it did happen.

I get the feeling we're missing something.

I'll just chalk up your blind spot on this subject to not being a college football fan.

This is one of the cases where the coverup is not worse than the crime. A pedophilia scandal would be a disaster for any football program. Football recruiting is VERY competitive, and negative recruiting is common. Attempting to overcome the "Ped State" label would have been difficult in 98 or 01, as it will be for the program going forward. And it doesn't matter whether the label would have been fair or not, we're talking college football recruiting. Rival recruiters would have shown no mercy.

All that said, I agree that there is plenty we could be missing. It doesn't necessarily have to be a child pedophile ring, however. It could simply be that Paterno and Curley, being closer to the program than Schultz and Spanier, had some knowledge that Sandusky repeatedly assaulted boys on the Penn State campus and at University-sponsored events in the years between 1998-2001. They knew a DPW investigation could potentially cost both of them their jobs.

J. J. in Phila · Aug 12, 2012

The problem I have is that the Big Four didn't try to do anything about it in 1998.

nittanylioness234 · Aug 12, 2012

BigCat said:
These are all valid points that I attempted to address in the 2001 Coverup thread. But let's bring in back on topic. Where is there any evidence that the 2001 coverup was related to a pedophile ring?

The 1998 investigation was closed. The 2001 incident was known only to PSU. Both started out with people doing the right things, or, in 2001, at least, with people talking about doing the right things.

Yet both matters were dropped. Why? I have never believed, as Freeh and popular opinion have it, that it was to protect football, because football would continue to be popular no matter what. Even now, with all that has happened, people are looking forward to the season, which, hopefully, will happen.

So what is the reason, or reasons, that action was not pursued both times? Perhaps they were asked, or told, or threatened, to back away to protect someone, or something, else - rich donors? connected politicians? rich donors and/or connected politicians in a pedophilia ring? Who knows? But there has to be some reason why. It can't be just to protect "nice guy Jerry."

BigCat · Aug 12, 2012

nittanylioness234 said:
The 1998 investigation was closed. The 2001 incident was known only to PSU. Both started out with people doing the right things, or, in 2001, at least, with people talking about doing the right things.

Yet both matters were dropped. Why? I have never believed, as Freeh and popular opinion have it, that it was to protect football, because football would continue to be popular no matter what. Even now, with all that has happened, people are looking forward to the season, which, hopefully, will happen.

So what is the reason, or reasons, that action was not pursued both times? Perhaps they were asked, or told, or threatened, to back away to protect someone, or something, else - rich donors? connected politicians? rich donors and/or connected politicians in a pedophilia ring? Who knows? But there has to be some reason why. It can't be just to protect "nice guy Jerry."

Football would continue to be popular, it just wouldn't have been as good, and Joe Pa would have never won 409 games, which made him the all-time winningest coach.

Those crazy kids over on the Penn State football boards are convinced that if a child pedophile ring is exposed, Penn State's wins will be restored and JoePa will get his record back. I'm not kidding.

http://store.apexadv.com/still409/

nittanylioness234 · Aug 12, 2012

BigCat said:
Football would continue to be popular, it just wouldn't have been as good, and Joe Pa would have never won 409 games, which made him the all-time winningest coach.

Those crazy kids over on the Penn State football boards are convinced that if a child pedophile ring is exposed, Penn State's wins will be restored and JoePa will get his record back. I'm not kidding.

http://store.apexadv.com/still409/

Wishful thinking on their part...And I don't think, in 2001, that anyone was thinking about 409 wins, or that anyone, except maybe Paterno (!), was thinking that he'd still be coaching 10 years down the road. People MAY have been thinking about Joe breaking Bryant's record, which happened later that year...but that doesn't seem to be enough to risk everything for...Joe could have waited another year for that...And, in 2001, football hadn't been as good for awhile, anyway, but it was still popular...

Reader · Aug 12, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
The problem I have is that the Big Four didn't try to do anything about it in 1998.

And, they DID have the knowledge to base action on to restrict him from the showers with children, p.47:

However, the Special Investigative Counsel discovered and reviewed numerous emails between Spanier, Schultz and Curley concerning the incident, and reviewed some of Schultz's files and handwritten notes as well. These documents provide a contemporaneous record of the 1998 events. It is not known how Schultz learned of the incident involving Sandusky, but it is clear that he knew of it by the time he attended a meeting about it at 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 1998. In documents Schultz held confidentially in his office and that had been concealed from the Special Investigative Counsel, Schultz had handwritten notes summarizing this meeting. d Other notes written by Schultz and contemporaneous records pertaining to the matter indicate that then-University Police Department Chief Thomas Harmon regularly informed Schultz of the investigation's progress. In fact, when the case began, Harmon told Schreffler that he wanted to be kept updated on the case so he could "send everything up the flag pole" and advise Schultz.143 Schultz's confidential notes dated May 4, 1998 state: a woman reported that her "11 1/2 yr old son" who had been involved with the Second Mile was taken by "Jerry" to the football locker rooms; that taped police interview reflected "Behavior - at best inappropriate @ worst sexual improprieties;" the conduct was "At min - Poor Judgment;" that Sandusky and the child were in the shower, and Sandusky "came up behind & gave him a bear hug - said he would squeeze guts out - all;" and that the boy's ten-year-old friend "claims same thing went on with him." The notes conclude with the words "Critical issue - contact w genitals? Assuming same experience w the second boy? Not criminal."144
d

Exhibit 2-H. Schultz's notes do not indicate who was present at the meeting.

The notes did belong to Schultz as his own assistant took them from his college office and gave them to him and twice denied doing this to Freeh's investigators, and was later fired.

Just this information above, even without the psychologist's report, with JS's admission of his actions, would have been grounds for any supervisor to talk to him about his actions in the WORKPLACE with children and tell him not to bring anymore children to the college showers or on football trips. Paterno and Curley were kept advised of this investigation also and either one of them should and could have taken this action.

Back to topic, it is very puzzling to me also why they did not follow through with action, if so, the 2001 incident probably could have been avoided, at least on campus. Whether or not there are other reasons for them not taking care of business, such as a pedo ring with influential people that intervened, or something else unknown, these 4 men obviously dropped the ball bigtime in 1998 and 2001. IMO

J. J. in Phila · Aug 12, 2012

nittanylioness234 said:
Wishful thinking on their part...And I don't think, in 2001, that anyone was thinking about 409 wins, or that anyone, except maybe Paterno (!), was thinking that he'd still be coaching 10 years down the road. People MAY have been thinking about Joe breaking Bryant's record, which happened later that year...but that doesn't seem to be enough to risk everything for...Joe could have waited another year for that...And, in 2001, football hadn't been as good for awhile, anyway, but it was still popular...

I have to agree. In 2000, there was a bad season. Sandusky was gone, and the team, arguably, suffered. A lot of the talent had graduated. Paterno was 73, and 87 victories away from the overall record.

That is really pushing it. It would be 11 seasons before he broke it.

Reader · Aug 12, 2012

BigCat said:
Football would continue to be popular, it just wouldn't have been as good, and Joe Pa would have never won 409 games, which made him the all-time winningest coach.

Those crazy kids over on the Penn State football boards are convinced that if a child pedophile ring is exposed, Penn State's wins will be restored and JoePa will get his record back. I'm not kidding.

http://store.apexadv.com/still409/

Oh my! how delusional...this Joepa worship is getting really twisted...can you please explain how they worked it out to come to this conclusion because I just can't follow that kind of thinking....

BTW, have you seen the 'communist' T-shirts?

J. J. in Phila · Aug 12, 2012

Reader said:
And, they DID have the knowledge to base action on to restrict him from the showers with children, p.47:

I'm referring to interfering with the investigation in 1998. The Big Four sat back and left everything to LE and DPW.

Just this information above, even without the psychologist's report, with JS's admission of his actions, would have been grounds for any supervisor to talk to him about his actions in the WORKPLACE with children and tell him not to bring anymore children to the college showers or on football trips. Paterno and Curley were kept advised of this investigation also and either one of them should and could have taken this action.

I think that would have been hard after there were no charges and after DPW didn't find anything.

Reader · Aug 12, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
I'm referring to interfering with the investigation in 1998. The Big Four sat back and left everything to LE and DPW.

I think that would have been hard after there were no charges and after DPW didn't find anything.

Nope, BTDT many times as a supervisor....you have the right, duty and obligation to your employer to insure that no inappropriate behavior takes place in the workplace that you are responsible for....JS admitted these actions to the mother, police, Lauro and Sheffler, and agreed with them that he would not bring children in there anymore...JP and Curley as his direct supervisors had every right and duty to discuss the matter with him and tell him what he could do and could not do in the workplace. It doesn't matter that there were no charges or finding of abuse...you may not be charged with DUI but you can be ordered not to drink on the job...you may not be charged with child abuse but you can be ordered not to slap your child at the office....same diff...IF a supervisor cares and wants to control their employee..apparently these 2 did not....OR there were other reasons per this thread topic....

J. J. in Phila · Aug 12, 2012

Reader said:
[/B]

Nope, BTDT many times as a supervisor....you have the right, duty and obligation to your employer to insure that no inappropriate behavior takes place in the workplace that you are responsible for....JS admitted these actions to the mother, police, Lauro and Sheffler, and agreed with them that he would not bring children in there anymore...JP and Curley as his direct supervisors had every right and duty to discuss the matter with him and tell him what he could do and could not do in the workplace. It doesn't matter that there were no charges or finding of abuse...you may not be charged with DUI but you can be ordered not to drink on the job...you may not be charged with child abuse but you can be ordered not to slap your child at the office....same diff...IF a supervisor cares and wants to control their employee..apparently these 2 did not....OR there were other reasons per this thread topic....

As indicated, it was fairly routine for other staffers to bring children into the showers. I'm not sure that Harmon actually gave anyone the details, or if he even read the report in full.

And, they have DPW saying, no abuse.

Rlaub44 · Aug 12, 2012

Reader said:
[/b]

Nope, BTDT many times as a supervisor....you have the right, duty and obligation to your employer to insure that no inappropriate behavior takes place in the workplace that you are responsible for....JS admitted these actions to the mother, police, Lauro and Sheffler, and agreed with them that he would not bring children in there anymore...JP and Curley as his direct supervisors had every right and duty to discuss the matter with him and tell him what he could do and could not do in the workplace. It doesn't matter that there were no charges or finding of abuse...you may not be charged with DUI but you can be ordered not to drink on the job...you may not be charged with child abuse but you can be ordered not to slap your child at the office....same diff...IF a supervisor cares and wants to control their employee..apparently these 2 did not....OR there were other reasons per this thread topic....

Reader, had Curley or Paterno told Sandusky, "we know that the police and DPW have determined no wrongdoing, but we are concerned that your behavior in showering with children is inappropriate; therefore you are not to bring any more Second Mile kids to Lasch building alone" - do you think it would have made any difference?

He apparently didn't listen after Curley gave him that same instruction in 2001, and Paterno had suggested on Sandusky's retirement offer "No to 2nd Mile kids", but we know now that the practice continued after hours.

Being that he had his own keys to the building, and preferred the later evening when there was less "traffic", while it may have been one less reason to criticize the PSU response to the outside investigation in 1998, I tend to doubt that Sandusky, who was probably feeling a bit bulletproof after getting one over on LE and DPW, would have done any more than given lip service to the request.

On the thread topic, if the pedophile ring investigation is based on the information by that Greg Bucceroni, I don't expect much to come of it. I am reading on other "alternative" news sites that this is connected to the Franklin Scandal, because Spanier was at Nebraska at the time. The child *advertiser censored* aspect though, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

BigCat · Aug 12, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
I have to agree. In 2000, there was a bad season. Sandusky was gone, and the team, arguably, suffered. A lot of the talent had graduated. Paterno was 73, and 87 victories away from the overall record.

Correct. He had one foot out the door. Imagine the impact a pedophilia scandal would have had on his coaching future at that point.

That is really pushing it. It would be 11 seasons before he broke it.

Well, he did get the record. He got win 409 on October 29th. Jerry Sandusky was arrested on November 5th. Paterno was fired on November 9th. So he never coached another game after he broke the record. Just a coincidence?

Reader · Aug 12, 2012

Rlaub44 said:
Reader, had Curley or Paterno told Sandusky, "we know that the police and DPW have determined no wrongdoing, but we are concerned that your behavior in showering with children is inappropriate; therefore you are not to bring any more Second Mile kids to Lasch building alone" - do you think it would have made any difference?

He apparently didn't listen after Curley gave him that same instruction in 2001, and Paterno had suggested on Sandusky's retirement offer "No to 2nd Mile kids", but we know now that the practice continued after hours.

Being that he had his own keys to the building, and preferred the later evening when there was less "traffic", while it may have been one less reason to criticize the PSU response to the outside investigation in 1998, I tend to doubt that Sandusky, who was probably feeling a bit bulletproof after getting one over on LE and DPW, would have done any more than given lip service to the request.

On the thread topic, if the pedophile ring investigation is based on the information by that Greg Bucceroni, I don't expect much to come of it. I am reading on other "alternative" news sites that this is connected to the Franklin Scandal, because Spanier was at Nebraska at the time. The child *advertiser censored* aspect though, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Whether it worked or made a difference or not, they would have done as much as they could as his supervisors to prevent his inappropriate behavior in 98...they didn't even try and we are all wondering why? Of course, if he did not comply, JS could have been fired but we all know that wouldn't have happened because he was such a great coach and all they were concerned about was football wins, IMO....but considering all this information, why did they feel obligated to give him carte blanche in his behaviors but also to give him such good retirement benefits with all these rights to use the facilities....who or what was behind that and does it have anything to do with the pedo ring investigation?

I think there is more than the one man regarding this investigation...links here and on the other thread show JS sent people invitations to 'share boys' and offered gifts, etc. The FBI and Postal Service does not investigate unless there is good reason to think there is something there, and apparently they are finding some proof....it will be very interesting to see who was involved with him in this mess....and if there will be more charges for him and others....

Pedophile Ring Investigation by FBI and US Postal Service

Verified Insider

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics