The 2001 Coverup

[J. J. in Phila]

The email from Curley after talking to JVP--I read that as JVP, out of loyalty, feeling uncomfortable with the idea of reporting on an old friend's misdeeds without alerting him first. I think JVP and TC decided that the decent thing to do was to let Sandusky know that they knew and that something had to be done, go with him to alert the Second Mile, and allow the Second Mile to proceed. Their motivations may have been good--to give the Second Mile to assess the impact this was going to have on the children they served, and to handle it in the way they deemed fit. IMO, the most important piece of missing information is whether TC notified the Second Mile, and what happened from there. I think a further investigation into the Second Mile should be a top priority.

Well, JVP and JS were not close, personally. The had different personalities and different interest, obviously. Second Mile was notified in 2001.

The recording: is the audible part at the beginning or end of it? I wonder if Sloane wanted to record the meeting, and that little message was intended as a cover for why he had the recorder.

It looks like it was just to provide a record. Recordings are not admissible without a court order.

Gricar: in the months before he disappeared, TC would have just entered the AG office, right? And RFG had been in TC's company multiple times in those months. Even though there may not have been a known open investigation into this case at that time, isn't it possible that as a result of TC entering the office, old information became relevant and they had a disagreement over it? i.e. TC finding out that RFG did not press charges?

Too may TC's. Corbett and Gricar had bad blood from an incident in 1998 (another one). in 2005, Corbett had no idea that there was anything involving Sandusky. I only know of one meeting, a press conference about two weeks before RFG disappeared.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think one of the problems with looking at this in hindsight is that we think people *knew* what information was given to them (since we now know it to be true and can see all of the pieces fit together).

So, the first time I read the "unless he admits to a problem" statement, I took it as "if he confesses, we will go easy on him." There is a good chance that what was really going on was that these guys had not been able to accept that JS really was sexually abusing children (I cannot imagine anything more difficult to comprehend when first confronted with it--that a man who was known to me for 30 years as a role model and community activist for young boys was actually hurting them. Look how hard it is for some of us to accept that JVP did what he did). Anyway, what that statement could have meant was--we don't think he did this, but we have to investigate it, and the best way to do that with the fewest negative consequences to the people involved (including the boys who were mentored by JS) is to have DPW investigate. If he actually confessed to a problem, then we would have to take the appropriate measures--report it to the police, etc. But if, as we expect, he says this is a misunderstanding, we will just do what we are obligated to do to verify that it is a misunderstanding.

On the same note, if RFG believed that it was inappropriate showering, but not sexual, he may have been considering the fallout to all the children who benefited from the Second Mile. If that was the case, and he made the decision not to prosecute because he believed that a, it was not sexual in nature, and b, he was protecting children by letting it die instead of allowing the information to become public, he would most certainly be distraught in 2005 if he got wind of confirmed sexual abuse.

Under that type of logic, Sandusky should never have been tried for sexual assault. Nobody should ever be expelled for cheating, either.

The RFG situation could play out in several ways. What if he realized that Sandusky was a child molester sometime after 1998 and his 1998 decision was a colossal lapse of judgment?

1. If he started renewing interest in Sandusky, that could lead to his murder because of that. A lot of people wanted that hidden.

2. What if he was worried that the decision would open him up for at least civil liability, beyond the terms of the county liability insurance. That would provide a strong motive for vanishing, knowing that he'd eventually be declared dead, his daughter would inherit, and there would not be a strong case against him.

3. Of course, Sandusky could be totally unrelated to the disappearance as well.

 

[rlc]

Under that type of logic, Sandusky should never have been tried for sexual assault. Nobody should ever be expelled for cheating, either. .

How in the world did you get that from what I said? It's pretty insulting. I have never even suggested that Sandusky did not do it or should not have been tried and convicted for it.

Intent is important under the law. There is a difference, legally and morally, from intentionally covering up a known crime, and mistakenly taking an overly cautious approach to what you may believe to be a misunderstanding or false accusation. And which intent someone operated under is going to affect the plausibility of various hypothetical scenarios.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

How in the world did you get that from what I said? It's pretty insulting. I have never even suggested that Sandusky did not do it or should not have been tried and convicted for it.

Intent is important under the law. There is a difference, legally and morally, from intentionally covering up a known crime, and mistakenly taking an overly cautious approach to what you may believe to be a misunderstanding or false accusation. And which intent someone operated under is going to affect the plausibility of various hypothetical scenarios.

That wasn't your logic, but the logic of the Big 4, if that was the logic they were using; you are, however, suggesting that this was their course of logic. **We won't do anything unless he admits it.** Seriously, if this a student cheating on a test, or one accused of plagiarism, would you expect that course of action?

You had an allegation of a crime, properly reported. They Big Four's duty was to report it, not to draw any conclusions about if it was a valid accusation. Schultz, in particular oversaw the police force. It would have been a simple matter to call Harmon and say, **Well, we have this report, but I don't vouch for the accuracy of it.**

Ironically, unless Victim 2 testified that there was an assault, I don't think that the 2001 case would have gone anywhere.

 

[rlc]

"That wasn't your logic, but the logic of the Big 4, if that was the logic they were using; you are, however, suggesting that this was their course of logic. **We won't do anything unless he admits it.** Seriously, if this a student cheating on a test, or one accused of plagiarism, would you expect that course of action?"

No, I was suggesting the course of action they were taking was to investigate it, but do so in a way that is not going to derail his life, unless an investigation was unnecessary because he admitted to it. I.e. if he admitted it, they could all go straight to the police. If he stated that it was just a misunderstanding, which is what they thought it was, then they would carry out the investigation, but not do it in a way that completely tarnishes an innocent man.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No, I was suggesting the course of action they were taking was to investigate it, but do so in a way that is not going to derail his life, unless an investigation was unnecessary because he admitted to it. I.e. if he admitted it, they could all go straight to the police. If he stated that it was just a misunderstanding, which is what they thought it was, then they would carry out the investigation, but not do it in a way that completely tarnishes an innocent man.

RLC, the Big Four, individually and collectively, are not the investigators. Further, they all could not go to LE, because it was Curley alone that was going to talk with Sandusky. Their duty, and the bright administrative thing to do, was report it to LE and DPW.

Granted, you get Sandusky's side of the story in the investigation, but you don't substitute that for the investigation. That is what they did, and they shouldn't have been the ones "investigating" it in the first place.

Granted, they may have been worried about tarnishing Sandusky's reputation, but still does not justify not calling the police.

 

[Reader]

Under that type of logic, Sandusky should never have been tried for sexual assault. Nobody should ever be expelled for cheating, either.

The RFG situation could play out in several ways. What if he realized that Sandusky was a child molester sometime after 1998 and his 1998 decision was a colossal lapse of judgment?

1. If he started renewing interest in Sandusky, that could lead to his murder because of that. A lot of people wanted that hidden.

2. What if he was worried that the decision would open him up for at least civil liability, beyond the terms of the county liability insurance. That would provide a strong motive for vanishing, knowing that he'd eventually be declared dead, his daughter would inherit, and there would not be a strong case against him.

3. Of course, Sandusky could be totally unrelated to the disappearance as well.

BBM- that is what my hypothetical was last night.....

 

[rlc]

RLC, the Big Four, individually and collectively, are not the investigators. Further, they all could not go to LE, because it was Curley alone that was going to talk with Sandusky. Their duty, and the bright administrative thing to do, was report it to LE and DPW.

Granted, you get Sandusky's side of the story in the investigation, but you don't substitute that for the investigation. That is what they did, and they shouldn't have been the ones "investigating" it in the first place.

Granted, they may have been worried about tarnishing Sandusky's reputation, but still does not justify not calling the police.

I'm saying that they may have been thinking it was a report that has to be investigated, but is unlikely to be true, so we can take it to DPW like we did the last time, to be investigated quietly, like last time.

Unless he admitted to a problem, then any concern they have about ruining his reputation is out the window and they call the police. Not because he confessed, but because it's actually true.

If they had called the police, the newspaper the next day would have read "sexual assault against a child reported in the football building." I knew people who were arrested for having sex in public, and it was right there, with names, in the police log the next day (at Penn State). If you believed someone was innocent, it would not be that easy to subject them to that.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm saying that they may have been thinking it was a report that has to be investigated, but is unlikely to be true, so we can take it to DPW like we did the last time, to be investigated quietly, like last time.

Unless he admitted to a problem, then any concern they have about ruining his reputation is out the window and they call the police. Not because he confessed, but because it's actually true.

If they had called the police, the newspaper the next day would have read "sexual assault against a child reported in the football building." I knew people who were arrested for having sex in public, and it was right there, with names, in the police log the next day (at Penn State). If you believed someone was innocent, it would not be that easy to subject them to that.

BBM: No it would not, as can be seen from the 1998 investigation, which they all knew about. You have to remember that for these four, this would have been the second time.

The Penn State Police are not covered by the open records law, remember. Remember how long it took the 1998 investigation to come out. The Big Four knew that, because they lobbied to set it up that way.

It could have been reported to the University Police, who had jurisdiction, and DPW with the same degree of cover that was provided in 1998.

BTW: I'm told I was thoroughly investigated by the Bellefonte Police Department. You never read about that in the press (unless you read it in my blog, or in PB's old blog). Oh, and the verdict was "pristine."

 

[rlc]

Did the 1998 call come through the University Park police?

When I was at school there, calls that went through University Park police were listed in the police log in the paper.

 

[BigCat]

Did the 1998 call come through the University Park police?

When I was at school there, calls that went through University Park police were listed in the police log in the paper.

On pg 48 of the Freeh report, it states that Schreffler delayed entering the incident in the crime log because there was no clear evidence of a crime. I don't know if the crime was ever entered or not.

Just curious, how many football players' names did you see entered in the paper? I have to wonder if it was SOP not to immediately enter the names of football players and coaches. I know of several incidents involving football players at my alma mater that disappeared down the memory hole (minor stuff, of course).

 

[rlc]

On pg 48 of the Freeh report, it states that Schreffler delayed entering the incident in the crime log because there was no clear evidence of a crime. I don't know if the crime was ever entered or not.

Just curious, how many football players' names did you see entered in the paper? I have to wonder if it was SOP not to immediately enter the names of football players and coaches. I know of several incidents involving football players at my alma mater that disappeared down the memory hole (minor stuff, of course).

I wish I could tell you, but I cannot answer that with any certainty. We used to read the police log daily. It was our favorite part of the paper. There was only incident I can recall related to football players. The police were called to a party at a residence where a few lived. The story I heard, which was neither contradicted or confirmed by the police log, was that some random students had shown up with beer, wanting to party with the football players, but one of the players was already on thin ice with JVP and demanded that they leave. If I recall correctly, there was a confrontation and a neighbor called the police.

The fact that I do not recall any others is not necessarily evidence they were not there. Sadly, I have never been good at being able to identify the names of any but the top players on the team.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Did the 1998 call come through the University Park police?

When I was at school there, calls that went through University Park police were listed in the police log in the paper.

Yes, but those are not public information. The incident report was leaked in 2012. The could have been no serious concern about a 2001 report being public.

 

[BigCat]

I'm saying that they may have been thinking it was a report that has to be investigated, but is unlikely to be true, so we can take it to DPW like we did the last time, to be investigated quietly, like last time.

Unless he admitted to a problem, then any concern they have about ruining his reputation is out the window and they call the police. Not because he confessed, but because it's actually true.

If they had called the police, the newspaper the next day would have read "sexual assault against a child reported in the football building." I knew people who were arrested for having sex in public, and it was right there, with names, in the police log the next day (at Penn State). If you believed someone was innocent, it would not be that easy to subject them to that.

Here's what I find so strange about that plan. Paterno reported the allegation to Schultz and Curley on February 11th. The next day, February 12th, C & S meet with Spanier to discuss the allegation. Spanier asked them, "are you sure that was described to you as horsing around?" (Freeh, 70). Then they agreed that Curley would discuss with Paterno the idea of approaching Sandusky to see if he "confesses to having a problem." C & S meet with McQueary TEN DAYS later.

Why didn't they interview McQueary immediately? Why did they go back to Paterno? Were Schultz and Curley lying to Spanier when they told him that Paterno only reported horsing around? Why did Curley start using 'code' after he met with McQueary? (pg 73).

Ultimately, the questions are: who is covering up? why are they covering up? what are they covering up? and when did the coverup begin?

 

[rlc]

Here's what I find so strange about that plan. Paterno reported the allegation to Schultz and Curley on February 11th. The next day, February 12th, C & S meet with Spanier to discuss the allegation. Spanier asked them, "are you sure that was described to you as horsing around?" (Freeh, 70). Then they agreed that Curley would discuss with Paterno the idea of approaching Sandusky to see if he "confesses to having a problem." C & S meet with McQueary TEN DAYS later.

Why didn't they interview McQueary immediately? Why did they go back to Paterno? Were Schultz and Curley lying to Spanier when they told him that Paterno only reported horsing around? Why did Curley start using 'code' after he met with McQueary? (pg 73).

Ultimately, the questions are: who is covering up? why are they covering up? what are they covering up? and when did the coverup begin?

I think everything you are pointing out actually is in favor of them not believing it to be what it was. If they knew on February 12th that Sandusky had raped a child, and wanted to cover it up, they would be responding with a lot more urgency. They would want to get to McQueary, make sure he did not discuss the situation with anyone else. They would worry that he would have second thoughts about the way they were handling and would go to police.

If McQueary reported it to Paterno in vague terms, and Paterno reported it to Curley and Schultz as "horsing around", then chances are they would see it as being an incident identical to the one in 1998--one of inappropriate boundaries, but which did not meet the standards for criminality, would not be prosecuted by the DA even after a full investigation. Their discussions, at that point, would probably be about liability, and legal authority to ban Sandusky from campus. Their thinking very well may have been that this is behavior that looks bad, but is not sexual, and unless Sandusky admits to having a problem, such as being attracted to young children, all we need to do is make sure DPW investigates it and Sandusky stays out of our facility with his young guests. My memory is already fuzzy on it, but I believe there was a call to their legal counsel the same day they received the report, or the day after, and my guess would be that the call was to find out what they could legally do to keep him off campus.

Now, once they met with McQueary, if he gave them a more detailed description that made it clear they were not dealing with the same scenario they were in 1998, I think their reaction would have changed at that point. But given that McQueary was not aware of the 1998 incident, I think it's entirely possible that what he conveyed to Paterno was vague enough that he thought Paterno understood the magnitude, but Paterno interpreted it, and conveyed it to Curley and Schultz, as an event similar to 1998. And I think it's entirely possible that the 1998 incident was not believed to be sexual in nature by those who reported it to authorities but were not part of the investigation, because it was not prosecuted.

ETA: for the record, it's not that I do not believe there was a cover-up. I do. There is no other explanation for the lack of follow-up. I just do not believe it occurred at the point they say it did. I think they wanted to find it in that evidence, and the lack of subsequent information, and so they did.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think everything you are pointing out actually is in favor of them not believing it to be what it was. If they knew on February 12th that Sandusky had raped a child, and wanted to cover it up, they would be responding with a lot more urgency. They would want to get to McQueary, make sure he did not discuss the situation with anyone else. They would worry that he would have second thoughts about the way they were handling and would go to police.

If McQueary reported it to Paterno in vague terms, and Paterno reported it to Curley and Schultz as "horsing around", then chances are they would see it as being an incident identical to the one in 1998--one of inappropriate boundaries, but which did not meet the standards for criminality, would not be prosecuted by the DA even after a full investigation. Their discussions, at that point, would probably be about liability, and legal authority to ban Sandusky from campus. Their thinking very well may have been that this is behavior that looks bad, but is not sexual, and unless Sandusky admits to having a problem, such as being attracted to young children, all we need to do is make sure DPW investigates it and Sandusky stays out of our facility with his young guests. My memory is already fuzzy on it, but I believe there was a call to their legal counsel the same day they received the report, or the day after, and my guess would be that the call was to find out what they could legally do to keep him off campus.

Your memory is not that fuzzy. Paterno reported it on Sunday, 2/11/01, and there was conference call with Courtney that night. On 2/12, they ask Harmon if the 1998 file was available.

Now, once they met with McQueary, if he gave them a more detailed description that made it clear they were not dealing with the same scenario they were in 1998, I think their reaction would have changed at that point. But given that McQueary was not aware of the 1998 incident, I think it's entirely possible that what he conveyed to Paterno was vague enough that he thought Paterno understood the magnitude, but Paterno interpreted it, and conveyed it to Curley and Schultz, as an event similar to 1998. And I think it's entirely possible that the 1998 incident was not believed to be sexual in nature by those who reported it to authorities but were not part of the investigation, because it was not prosecuted.

That is possible, but their is another problem. Schultz and Curley met with McQueary ten days later 2/20-2/22/01. After that, on 2/25/01 Spanier, Schultz and Curley all got together and devised the plan:

1. Talk to Sandusky.

2. Tell Second Mile chair.

3. Tell DPW.

On 2/27/01, after a meeting with Paterno, Curley becomes "uncomfortable" with talking to anyone, except for Sandusky. When they made the plan, they knew the serious of the incident.

ETA: for the record, it's not that I do not believe there was a cover-up. I do. There is no other explanation for the lack of follow-up. I just do not believe it occurred at the point they say it did. I think they wanted to find it in that evidence, and the lack of subsequent information, and so they did.

I actually believe that, up to 2/26, all of the Big Four were acting within appropriate boundaries. Had the followed the original plan, I doubt if there would have been NCAA sanctions.

Now, Curley clearly gave the impression that Paterno didn't want this to go to DPW. If Curley was not misrepresenting Paterno's view, why would he not favor this going off to DPW? If Curley is misrepresenting Paterno's view, why would he do so?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

[Respectfully snipped]

Why didn't they interview McQueary immediately? Why did they go back to Paterno? Were Schultz and Curley lying to Spanier when they told him that Paterno only reported horsing around? Why did Curley start using 'code' after he met with McQueary? (pg 73).

For the first question, I can see them thinking it was just another "hugging in the shower" incident. I think rlc nailed it. For the second, it was just Curley, and he did brief Paterno on stuff involving the football program (like he did with 1998).

For the last two, it looks like, after they interviewed McQueary, it looks like they realized it was more than hugging.

Ultimately, the questions are: who is covering up? why are they covering up? what are they covering up? and when did the coverup begin?

1. At least Paterno acquiesced to the cover up, but clearly Curley, Schultz and Spanier knew about it directly and approved of it. Whose idea was it to change the "plan" might be a better question.

3. What they are covering up, directly, is Victim 2. Was there a worry that if Victim 2 would come out, there would be something else? (Yes, that is only a partial answer.)

4. The cover up of the 2001 incident began on 2/26-2/27/01.

This is the key question:

2. Why are they covering up? I wish I had an answer.

Another question was, after they talked to McQueary, why did they never contemplate actually reporting this to the police? Why were they focused solely on DPW?

 

[rlc]

"On 2/27/01, after a meeting with Paterno, Curley becomes "uncomfortable" with talking to anyone, except for Sandusky. When they made the plan, they knew the serious of the incident."

I thought the language was that he was uncomfortable talking to everyone but Sandusky. Which has a different meaning that uncomfortable talking to anyone but Sandusky. The first implies, to me, that he is uncomfortable leaving Sandusky in the dark. The second implies that he wants to cover it up.

I apologize if I am wrong about that. it would change my opinion, but I have had a hard time accessing the exhibits to the Freeh report. My slightly fuzzy memory says that the narrative of the report used anyone, but the email itself says everyone.

 

[StellarsJay]

"The cover up of the 2001 incident began on 2/26-2/27/01."
Yes!

"Another question was, after they talked to McQueary, why did they never contemplate actually reporting this to the police? Why were they focused solely on DPW?"

Maybe: If they reported to police the 1998 file would be opened. But DPW destroys their records in unfounded cases, so they didn't have a file, and probably have a lot of staff turnover.
Harmon (police) might have advised them to keep it out of his office if it wasn't serious.

Besides, higher law enforcement wouldn't be happy that they waited 2 weeks. DPW seems to have a looser time constraint. And perhaps they thought that DPW was responsible for dropping the 1998 case so was the less dangerous agency.

They didn't go back to Courtney for fresh advice.

Schultz was away (Australia) for a few days at some point, maybe when the email coding started up, and maybe he was the only one smart enough and neutral enough to have reported a crime. Without him present, the others folded?
P73 Freeh- Shultz says he will be out of theoffice for a couple of weeks.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I thought the language was that he was uncomfortable talking to everyone but Sandusky. Which has a different meaning that uncomfortable talking to anyone but Sandusky. The first implies, to me, that he is uncomfortable leaving Sandusky in the dark. The second implies that he wants to cover it up.

The quote is "I am having a problem with going to everyone, but the person involved."

The plan that they agreed on on 2/25 was:

"3. Tell chair* of the Board of Second Mile.

2. Report to Dept. of Welfare.

1. Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.

*Who's the chair?"

That's from the handwritten note. The e-mail from 2/26 from Schultz to Curley inverts points 2 and 3. The e-mail lists talking to "the subject" first, "ASAP."

It seems very clear that they were going to talk to Sandusky, first and that was part of the plan. I don't think that they were contemplating keeping Sandusky in the dark, at that point. They were planning to talk to him, first, as of 2/25.