All things Joe Paterno

[Twindad]

Would they be willing to keep Ganter on staff? They were more than willing to keep Sandusky on staff. Wasn't he offered an assistant AD position, or to remain as a coach as long as Paterno remained, when informed he wasn't going to be the next head coach?

Ganter(along with Bradley) was one of those reported to have seen Sandusky numerous times with boys in the showers.

Who was the person initiating the meeting? This might give a better clue as to what the meeting was to be about.

 

[StellarsJay]

Where is Harmon now? Alive, around, still beholden to PSU people? Did he know anything- can he be made to testify- did he see the psychologist's reports? I've forgotten, but it seems to me he's been ignored.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Would they be willing to keep Ganter on staff? They were more than willing to keep Sandusky on staff. Wasn't he offered an assistant AD position, or to remain as a coach as long as Paterno remained, when informed he wasn't going to be the next head coach?

Ganter(along with Bradley) was one of those reported to have seen Sandusky numerous times with boys in the showers.

Who was the person initiating the meeting? This might give a better clue as to what the meeting was to be about.

I didn't know the meeting took place until I read about it in the paper, so your guess is as good as mine.

SJ, Harmon is still alive, though he retired a few years ago. He testified at Schultz/Curley preliminary hearing, IIRC and he is in Spanier presentment.

 

[JaimeSommers]

(Deleted duplicate post)

 

[JaimeSommers]

RS&BBM ... Somehow missed this the first go-round.

So what we have is:

1. The case was sent to Arnold (5/4/98). Say what you want about her, but these cases were her specialty; she was the go to person in the office on these for the next 7 years. Gricar removed her, completely (sometime on or after 5/8/98). The police report indicated that she had “extensive disagreements” over the police investigation. It is hugely unlikely that she was arguing that Gricar should go softer on Sandusky.

2. Sloane, Gricar's closest friend in the office, was brought in on the case (date unknown).

I don't like this. I don't like this at all. It implies intent, imo.

 

[JaimeSommers]

It seems as if the biggest event near this date was the Artsfest riot in July. Homecoming was after 10/13 that year. I did come across this: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/16/3262382/report-reveals-sanduskys-retirement.html

Maybe the meeting was about Sandusky's ongoing negotiations, keeping them "in the loop". It appears more and more to me there is something Sandusky has or can do which these men are afraid of. Could it be protection from someone more powerful or something of a more personal nature? Judge David Grine finalized his adoption of Matt.

BBM ... I have wondered the same thing, Twindad. It would surprise me not one bit to find out that this is the case.

 

[Twindad]

Funny you should ask - I searched the internet for that very thing when news of the 10/13 meeting first broke. I couldn't find anything, but someone more savvy than I might make a better go of it.


I don't know if back issues of the Collegian or the CDT would have anything relevant?

Now if a student lived on campus, but committed a crime downtown, is it possible the two police agencies would coordinate their investigation? And that also makes me realize that Sloane referring to the "investigation" doesn't mean it was Gricar investigating. Perhaps the police had investigated something and were pulling together with the DA to discuss whether charges would be filed. Ganter may have had relevant information.

The point is, it is possible that it was not Sandusky-related. For those of you that are leaning toward the meeting being about Sandusky, what reason do you see for Ganter being there?

Well, Ganter might have been acting as a facilitator/mediator.
He might update police on Sandusky retirement negotiations.
He might be reporting seeing Sandusky with another child in the showers and was looking to keep it quiet.
He might of been having second thoughts about what happened and wanted to "spill the beans" and was looking for support.

They probably used a PSU facility for reasons, as Sandusky, such as privacy and control. I would tend to believe keeping things quiet over anything else.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RS&BBM ... Somehow missed this the first go-round.



I don't like this. I don't like this at all. It implies intent, imo.

Well, I have heard that Arnold was removed from the Mendez-Vargas case in 2004-05, so it might not be unique to the Sandusky case.

I don't know if the link still works, but one of Amendola's filings indicated that the police reports indicated she had "extensive disagreements" with Gricar over the police investigation. http://centrecountypa.gov/index.aspx?nid=506

It is the "SANDUSKY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL COMMONWEALTH TO PROVIDE HIM WITH PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATERIALS" filing of 2/7/12, p. 15.

It is possible that they had different approaches to this case.

Gricar and Sloane were close, professionally and personally, and Sloane was brought in to argue the penalty phases in death penalty cases.

An innocent explanation is a least possible, though I have to admit, it does not look good. Arnold, normally, would be the one coordinating with CYS/DPW, and Lauro, at DPW, said he never had the Chambers Report until 2012. If Arnold isn't on the case, she couldn't very well send it to Lauro.

Is Lauro lying? Did the DA's Office just assume that he had the Chambers report or assume that they couldn't use it? Did the DA's Office deliberately not send this to Lauro?

 

[JaimeSommers]

I don't know if the link still works, but one of Amendola's filings indicated that the police reports indicated she had "extensive disagreements" with Gricar over the police investigation. http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/up...IDE HIM WITH PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATERIALS.pdf

It is possible that they had different approaches to this case.

Would LOVE to know (for sure) what those differences were.

Gricar and Sloane were close, professionally and personally, and Sloane was brought in to argue the penalty phases in death penalty cases.

Unless one of those death-penalty cases involved a University bigwig, which none did, the Sandusky case (to me) is different.

Is Lauro lying? Did the DA's Office just assume that he had the Chambers report or assume that they couldn't use it? Did the DA's Office deliberately not send this to Lauro?

All good questions. I'll take Door #3, Monty.

I realize this is a question none of us can answer with certainty, but why would Arnold protect Gricar following his disappearance? (Apologies if this has already been discussed. After a while it's hard to remember what I've read here and on the Gricar forum.)

 

[Twindad]

Would LOVE to know (for sure) what those differences were.



Unless one of those death-penalty cases involved a University bigwig, which none did, the Sandusky case (to me) is different.



All good questions. I'll take Door #3, Monty.

I realize this is a question none of us can answer with certainty, but why would Arnold protect Gricar following his disappearance? (Apologies if this has already been discussed. After a while it's hard to remember what I've read here and on the Gricar forum.)

https://sites.google.com/site/gricardisappearance/
This may help answer your question.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Would LOVE to know (for sure) what those differences were.

Well, we can be fairly certain Arnold did not want to go easier on Sandusky, unless she was planning to throw him a testimonial dinner.

Unless one of those death-penalty cases involved a University bigwig, which none did, the Sandusky case (to me) is different.

Sloane was exceptionally close to Gricar, to the point of going with Gricar to visit Cleveland. They were friends and had a close professional relationship. Sloane was also an alumnus, so it didn't hurt.

All good questions. I'll take Door #3, Monty.

Even Door #3 may not be illegal. It still would make Gricar look particularly good.

I realize this is a question none of us can answer with certainty, but why would Arnold protect Gricar following his disappearance? (Apologies if this has already been discussed. After a while it's hard to remember what I've read here and on the Gricar forum.)

She cared very deeply for Gricar. That said, I believe her accounts that she was removed from the case and was not involved after that.

You might also wish to read this blog: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/23/3101230/extensive-disagreements.html

 

[JaimeSommers]

https://sites.google.com/site/gricardisappearance/
This may help answer your question.

Thank you. When was this written? I couldn't find a date. (It's probably right in front of me; am a bit foggy from the flu.)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thank you. When was this written? I couldn't find a date. (It's probably right in front of me; am a bit foggy from the flu.)

Finished in early to mid July in 2007.

It triggered a police investigation of me, along with a press investigation.

The verdict was "pristine."

 

[JaimeSommers]

Well, we can be fairly certain Arnold did not want to go easier on Sandusky, unless she was planning to throw him a testimonial dinner.

BBM ... No, I'm sure of that much.

Sloane was exceptionally close to Gricar, to the point of going with Gricar to visit Cleveland. They were friends and had a close professional relationship.

Right, and that's what I'm saying: He removed the go-to Arnold and replaced her with his close friend, who would have had Gricar's back. That can be both a good thing and a suspicious thing, imo. On the one hand, Sloane would be a trusted partner and keep confidences; on the other, Sloane would be a trusted partner and keep confidences. Know what I mean?

If he had wanted to, could Gricar have worked with both of them instead of letting Arnold go from the case?

(Edited to delete extra text.)

 

[JaimeSommers]

Finished in early to mid July in 2007.

It triggered a police investigation of me, along with a press investigation.

The verdict was "pristine."

Ahhhhhhhhh, yes, the whole "paramour" debacle. I recall a lively debate about Arnold's use of the word that took place on the Gricar forum maybe two years ago.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Right, and that's what I'm saying: He removed the go-to Arnold and replaced her with his close friend, who would have had Gricar's back. That can be both a good thing and a suspicious thing, imo. On the one hand, Sloane would be a trusted partner and keep confidences; on the other, Sloane would be a trusted partner and keep confidences. Know what I mean?

If he had wanted to, could Gricar have worked with both of them instead of letting Arnold go from the case?

Respectfully snipped.

Unfortunately, I do know what you mean. This could be innocent or just bad administration, but it does not look good.

Yes, Gricar could have very easily had Arnold handling aspect of the case, e.g. getting stuff to DPW and reviewing the new statute, and handled the prosecution in court directly, assisted by Sloane. It is possible that he tried to do that, and Arnold balked. That could be the disagreement, though I think it is unlikely. Arnold is not talking, publicly (or to Freeh).

 

[Rlaub44]

1. The case was sent to Arnold (5/4/98). Say what you want about her, but these cases were her specialty; she was the go to person in the office on these for the next 7 years. Gricar removed her, completely (sometime on or after 5/8/98). The police report indicated that she had “extensive disagreements” over the police investigation. It is hugely unlikely that she was arguing that Gricar should go softer on Sandusky.

2. Sloane, Gricar's closest friend in the office, was brought in on the case (date unknown).

5. After the case was close there was a meeting between Gricar, Sloane, Schreffler, Ralston and Ganter (10/13/98). It was at the "football building" and involved an investigation. Except for Ganter, everyone was involved in the May investigation. Lauro was not present, nor was Arnold (who was removed earlier).

Sloane was the source, but he can't recall what it was about; at least that is what he told Ganim.

Note that Sloane is Gricar's closest friend. Arnold is who had a great deal of respect of Gricar, though there was never any suggestion of a close friendship.

Snipped by me

Refresh my memory - what exactly do we know about Sloane being brought in on the case?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped by me

Refresh my memory - what exactly do we know about Sloane being brought in on the case?

We know that he was, but that is all that has been said, publicly.

 

[Rlaub44]

We know that he was, but that is all that has been said, publicly.

Was that from one of the documents, or do we know it from another source? Sorry for being persistent, but I don't recall it, and I want to be sure about our facts.

 

[Reader]

I haven't heard that Ganter was especially close to Sandusky - that could be one reason why such a message may get delivered to him. Otherwise, I would have thought it would be more appropriately conveyed to one of Jerry's supervisors (Paterno or Curley), not to his offensive counterpart, who would have been his equal on an organizational chart.

We may not know all of the parties invited to the meeting, but if Paterno were to be there, I imagine Sloane's tape message would have indicated his name rather than his less-famous assistant Ganter.

If the meeting were for the purpose of delivering that message, would you expect Ganter to still have his current position as Assistant AD? I would be surprised if he (or PSU) is waiting for the other shoe to drop while he is still employed.

Also, that seems like the kind of deal that would be kept quiet - would it make sense to have Schreffler and Ralston there? What could they add to Gricar's offer?

BBM - There is a tape of a message from Sloane? To Ganim? Is there a link to this? ....sorry if I missed it before....