The torturous, winding path of 'Victim 1'

New Posts

J. J. in Phila said:
Madeira was the guy in charge. He would have to supervise anyone that was prosecuting. Also, he didn't have a detective.




I'm not so sure about if Madeira knew about 1998. Arnold was not there in 2008. It is possible that someone there did know about it, but unless Madeira called everyone in and asked, "Anyone remember if there was ever a problem with Jerry Sandusky," he wouldn't know. He has said the first time he heard about it was in the 2011 presentment.
Click to expand...

Somehow, I hope their record-keeping system was better than that.

DPW and C&Y have to purge records of investigations that are unfounded, but LE and the DA shouldn't be under the same constriction. Harmon indicated to Schultz in 2001 that his office still had records of the 98 investigation; do you not think it likely that Gricar's files were maintained?
 
Rlaub44 said:
Somehow, I hope their record-keeping system was better than that.
Click to expand...

It wasn't; they don't have a file.

DPW and C&Y have to purge records of investigations that are unfounded, but LE and the DA shouldn't be under the same constriction. Harmon indicated to Schultz in 2001 that his office still had records of the 98 investigation; do you not think it likely that Gricar's files were maintained?
Click to expand...


Madeira said that it would not be unusual in a case that was never prosecuted. Parks Miller has said that there was no information at the office.

That is not to say that if Madeira would have asked around, there might not have been individuals that remembered the case, even in the office. Madeira didn't know that, however, when he sent the case to the AG's Office.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
It wasn't; they don't have a file.




Madeira said that it would not be unusual in a case that was never prosecuted. Parks Miller has said that there was no information at the office.

That is not to say that if Madeira would have asked around, there might not have been individuals that remembered the case, even in the office. Madeira didn't know that, however, when he sent the case to the AG's Office.
Click to expand...

I continue to be shocked by the stupidity of agencies involved in this case. So if there is an investigation and the choice is made at the time not to prosecute, you destroy the file and any of the information you gathered up to that point? What if more information comes out two years later? Oh, well, start from scratch?!? Am I the only one that finds this poor practice?

In my opinion, that is shoddy, lazy, and unprofessional - but I guess par for the course around the Sandusky investigation.
 
Rlaub44 said:
I continue to be shocked by the stupidity of agencies involved in this case. So if there is an investigation and the choice is made at the time not to prosecute, you destroy the file and any of the information you gathered up to that point? What if more information comes out two years later? Oh, well, start from scratch?!? Am I the only one that finds this poor practice?

In my opinion, that is shoddy, lazy, and unprofessional - but I guess par for the course around the Sandusky investigation.
Click to expand...


Well, that wasn't Corbett's, Madeira's, or Clinton DA Salisbury's fault. None of them were involved in the 1998 investigation.

If there was someone in the Centre County DA's Office that was familiar with the case, unless Madeira made some sort of announcement to the staff, he/she would have never known about 1998 when the 2008 incident was reported.

Parks Miller had been elected in 2009, and was sworn in in 1/10, so she wasn't involved. Arnold had not been reappointed in 1/06, when Madeira was elected, so she was definitely out of the loop as well.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
Well, that wasn't Corbett's, Madeira's, or Clinton DA Salisbury's fault. None of them were involved in the 1998 investigation.
Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting it is a Centre Co DA's Office policy/practice issue.

I still believe Corbett has some things to answer for, if Psychologist Gillum's accounts of his conversations with Eshbach are accurate. I have no reason to believe Madeira could have foreseen how long the case would take when he referred it to Corbett, and as far as I can tell, Salisbury never had a crack at it.
 
Rlaub44 said:
No, I'm suggesting it is a Centre Co DA's Office policy/practice issue.

I still believe Corbett has some things to answer for, if Psychologist Gillum's accounts of his conversations with Eshbach are accurate. I have no reason to believe Madeira could have foreseen how long the case would take when he referred it to Corbett, and as far as I can tell, Salisbury never had a crack at it.
Click to expand...

Salisbury noted that the then alleged crime didn't take place in Clinton County; That was out of his jurisdiction. Madeira had a legitimate conflict of interest; his brother-in-law had a tie to Sandusky's family (and we now know his stepbrother is alleged to have been a victim).

Corbett may, but some of this might be that they had a difficult time locating these other victims. They couldn't interview Gricar; he's missing. Some of the investigators, Schreffler, Harmon, had retired. Arnold was out. They'd basically have to ask every cop and prosecutor in Centre County for the last 20 years if they ever had any dealings with Sandusky to find out about Victim 6.

The AG's investigators didn't publicize that they were looking into Sandusky. I don't know how they found out about the 1998 incident, but by 3/31/11, they had it.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
Salisbury noted that the then alleged crime didn't take place in Clinton County; That was out of his jurisdiction. Madeira had a legitimate conflict of interest; his brother-in-law had a tie to Sandusky's family (and we now know his stepbrother is alleged to have been a victim).

Corbett may, but some of this might be that they had a difficult time locating these other victims. They couldn't interview Gricar; he's missing. Some of the investigators, Schreffler, Harmon, had retired. Arnold was out. They'd basically have to ask every cop and prosecutor in Centre County for the last 20 years if they ever had any dealings with Sandusky to find out about Victim 6.

The AG's investigators didn't publicize that they were looking into Sandusky. I don't know how they found out about the 1998 incident, but by 3/31/11, they had it.
Click to expand...

That brings up a great question - why did they start looking for other victims? The case referred to the AG was based on Victim 1's complaint. We now know there were grand jury appearances in June 2009, November 2009, and then again in April of 2011. From the NY Times:

Investigators with the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office had by 2010 already come to the conclusion that Sandusky, the longtime defensive coordinator for Joe Paterno’s Nittany Lions, was a serial molester. . .
Investigators for the attorney general’s office had heard rumors that Sandusky had come to the attention of law enforcement officials sometime in the past, but they were not sure when or where.
The investigators, according to those with knowledge of the case, began calling around to nearby police departments; they received a hit when they reached the campus police.

So the report was made to CYS in Nov. 2008, and finally in 2010, investigators get around to contacting the University Police Dept. and subpoenaing records from the Second Mile. Forgive me for feeling that this case wasn't exactly getting the fast track.
 
Rlaub44 said:
That brings up a great question - why did they start looking for other victims? The case referred to the AG was based on Victim 1's complaint. We now know there were grand jury appearances in June 2009, November 2009, and then again in April of 2011. From the NY Times:

Investigators with the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office had by 2010 already come to the conclusion that Sandusky, the longtime defensive coordinator for Joe Paterno’s Nittany Lions, was a serial molester. . .
Investigators for the attorney general’s office had heard rumors that Sandusky had come to the attention of law enforcement officials sometime in the past, but they were not sure when or where.
The investigators, according to those with knowledge of the case, began calling around to nearby police departments; they received a hit when they reached the campus police.

So the report was made to CYS in Nov. 2008, and finally in 2010, investigators get around to contacting the University Police Dept. and subpoenaing records from the Second Mile. Forgive me for feeling that this case wasn't exactly getting the fast track.
Click to expand...

The case wasn't turned over to the AG's Office until 2/09. They apparently didn't think that just one victim would guarantee a conviction and thought, correctly, that there would be others. The first GJ might have declined to charge, which would be rare.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
The case wasn't turned over to the AG's Office until 2/09. They apparently didn't think that just one victim would guarantee a conviction and thought, correctly, that there would be others. The first GJ might have declined to charge, which would be rare.
Click to expand...

Definitely, therefore the saying that "a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich."

The article I linked previously ( http://newslanc.com/2012/11/12/sile...e-of-abuse-by-jerry-sandusky-and-tom-corbett/ ) notes that in PA, the attorney general has to approve the presentment. So it is possible that Corbett was responsible for holding off on the charges.

Who would have known to email Stacy Parks Miller with the tip about McQueary? The source must have known that an investigation was in process, but didn't know that it had been assigned to PSP by the AG's office. Any thoughts?
 
Rlaub44 said:
Definitely, therefore the saying that "a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich."

The article I linked previously ( http://newslanc.com/2012/11/12/sile...e-of-abuse-by-jerry-sandusky-and-tom-corbett/ ) notes that in PA, the attorney general has to approve the presentment. So it is possible that Corbett was responsible for holding off on the charges.
Click to expand...

It could have been regarded as a weak case. There was no physical evidence, no eyewitness to the act (though some corroboration), and Sandusky was a pillar of the community, not the "Tickle Monster."

The investigators though if there was one victim, there would be more.

Who would have known to email Stacy Parks Miller with the tip about McQueary? The source must have known that an investigation was in process, but didn't know that it had been assigned to PSP by the AG's office. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

SPM was seen, in 2010, as a major change. Someone might have easily thought that she'd investigate where Madeira would not. On 4/1/10, for example, she former her "review panel" for the Gricar case, so she was seen as someone who might be more willing to investigate. The person might not have been aware of GJ investigation.

Here are folks we know that knew about Victim 2.

1. Victim 2.

2. Both McQuearys.

3. Dr. Dranov.

4. Paterno.

5. Schultz, Curley and Spanier.

6. Dr. Raykovitz might have had limited knowledge.

Anyone these guys told.
 
Maybe you can add Wendell Courtney to the list. It might be a fair question to ask who was an insider to the investigation and would profit by the release of this info at that time.
It might narrow down the list.
 
Twindad said:
Maybe you can add Wendell Courtney to the list. It might be a fair question to ask who was an insider to the investigation and would profit by the release of this info at that time.
It might narrow down the list.
Click to expand...

Good point. My understanding though was that the tipster pointed investigators to the posts on a Nittany Lion message board about what a coach had seen, so it might not even have had to be an insider. The coach turned out to be McQueary, but I am not sure if the posts in question were supposed to have been made by him.

For what it's worth, I have seen this before, but the website that it is from might lack some credibility:

Thank you for all of your work in separating fact from fiction. I want to share with you what I have been involved doing. I pointed Curley & Schultz Investigators to statements from McQueary on the (name-redacted) messageboard chat. Mike told several members of the chat what he witnessed was only horseplay. Essentially below is how this has transpired. The time period he posted on the message board was mid-2000’s, before he met with investigators. Unfortunately chat records from what I am told are not saved but I pointed them to several individuals who were told by Mike and also told them to access Mikes PSU computer. Investigators have spoken with several individuals who witnessed Mike playing in at least two TSM golf events. Also, I've been told that Curley finds the Freeh Fiction laughable
1.There are no posts on message boards, everything was said in chat
2.Mike McQueary used to frequent the chat under the handle "xxxx"
3. His brother John is a member of the site and goes but the name "xxxxxx" He would go into the chat under the handle of "xxxxx"
4. To confirm it was actually Mike posting as "xxxx," his brother confirmed to several people and a moderator traced the IP address back to PSU.
5.Over the years, both Mike and John McQueary told posters with whom they became friends in chat the Sandusky story. Every person they spoke to said it was consistently described as "horseplay in the shower." That's why nobody ever took it any further. There was nothing sexual ever connected with it
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/20045-psu-messageboard-chat-gives.html
​
Now this person claims to have sent this to Curley & Schultz's investigators in an effort to discredit McQueary, but these may have been the same posts that the original tipster directed Parks-Miller to.

​
 
Suppose McQueary was already known to have witnessed Sandusky and reported it to Paterno et. al. by investigators. Then to make it appear as a new lead, the chat room conversations are discovered. When released to the public, everyone thinks how clever! but it's really just a new release of old information.
The info reportedly in the chats was not leading anyone to suspect anything. I feel a person able to connect the chat to Sandusky must have been aware of the nature of what happened and that an investigation was in progress.
 
Twindad said:
Suppose McQueary was already known to have witnessed Sandusky and reported it to Paterno et. al. by investigators. Then to make it appear as a new lead, the chat room conversations are discovered. When released to the public, everyone thinks how clever! but it's really just a new release of old information.
The info reportedly in the chats was not leading anyone to suspect anything. I feel a person able to connect the chat to Sandusky must have been aware of the nature of what happened and that an investigation was in progress.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I did a little more digging and found this article about Sara Ganim:
"Anything else going on?" Sara Ganim asked her source late one night in 2009. As the crime reporter for a small newspaper in State College, Pennsylvania, it was a question she always ended with. And this evening, to Ganim's surprise, the source replied, "Well, actually, a boy just came forward to the police and alleged sex crimes against Jerry Sandusky."

Ganim, a Penn State grad and a football fan herself, knew her way around the university's online message boards. There she quickly found gossip about Sandusky getting too friendly with young boys. So she started asking around. "I'd say, 'Hey, have you heard anything strange about Jerry Sandusky?'" And though people knew about the rumors, Ganim says, "almost no one believed they were true."

Read More http://www.glamour.com/inspired/mag...oman-who-exposed-jerry-sandusky#ixzz2CnNpiehv

Could Ganim herself have been the source? 2009 would make the timing about right, and we know that she later took the initiative to dig up other potential victims on her own and give them the investigators' contact information, so it fits her style.
 
Rlaub44 said:
Could Ganim herself have been the source? 2009 would make the timing about right, and we know that she later took the initiative to dig up other potential victims on her own and give them the investigators' contact information, so it fits her style.
Click to expand...


Okay, the story was written in April of 2012, so in April 2010, she would have been 22. The e-mail went to Parks Miller sometime before November 2010, probably October. She would not have known about McQueary from that tip.

The only possibility would be if Gamin called around and heard something from someone at Penn State that McQueary reported something, even second or third hand. It is possible, but it is more likely it was someone with more direct knowledge, especially with rumors circulating. Conversely someone else at the paper heard it from Gamin and forwarded it to Parks Miller.

Especially in 2010, Parks Miller was very popular with some of the staff on the paper. She won by nearly 30 percentage points, so she was popular overall at that point in time (and isn't tremendously unpopular now).

It would not be unknown for people with interest in the case to forward things to LE.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
Okay, the story was written in April of 2012, so in April 2010, she would have been 22. The e-mail went to Parks Miller sometime before November 2010, probably October. She would not have known about McQueary from that tip.

The only possibility would be if Gamin called around and heard something from someone at Penn State that McQueary reported something, even second or third hand. It is possible, but it is more likely it was someone with more direct knowledge, especially with rumors circulating. Conversely someone else at the paper heard it from Gamin and forwarded it to Parks Miller.

Especially in 2010, Parks Miller was very popular with some of the staff on the paper. She won by nearly 30 percentage points, so she was popular overall at that point in time (and isn't tremendously unpopular now).

It would not be unknown for people with interest in the case to forward things to LE.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your April 2010 date? The Glamour article indicates that Sara's source told her about Sandusky in 2009 - the case was being investigated all through 2009, so it could have been anytime during that year, allowing plenty of time for her to alert Parks-Miller.

I can't find hard evidence about Sara's birthdate, but she graduated from PSU in 2008, so I would have imagined her to be 21 that year, which is likely to make her 22 in 2009.

You have to admit, the article's focus on her use of Penn State message boards to uncover the rumors, and the time-frame in which it occurred, is a very interesting coincidence considering the story of how investigators were tipped to McQueary.

For me, this is still a possibility.
 
Rlaub44 said:
I'm not sure I follow your April 2010 date? The Glamour article indicates that Sara's source told her about Sandusky in 2009 - the case was being investigated all through 2009, so it could have been anytime during that year, allowing plenty of time for her to alert Parks-Miller.
Click to expand...

The article looks like it was published in early 2012, March, not April, because it refers to her winning a Sidney Award in December (of 2011) and doesn't mention the Pulitzer. The earliest comment from March. She was 24 then and it says she was 22 when she got the call. That would make it 2010-9. The case was at the GJ at that point.

When she started at the P-N, in January of 2011, she was working on the case for "almost two years." http://www.sbstatesman.com/journalist-who-broke-psu-scandal-spoke-to-sbu-students786

That would put it in early 2009, but the contact didn't go until around October 2010. Even if there was a delay in 2010, it still would be about a year later. In 2/09, the case was sent to the Grand Jury. It is possible it was Ganim, but I don't think so.
 
Inquirer Editorial: Protecting kids is the priority

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinio...itorial__Protecting_kids_is_the_priority.html

The sweeping legal reforms recommended for Pennsylvania's child-abuse laws this week would go a long way toward building a better early-warning defense against predators like convicted molester Jerry Sandusky - even as long-ago abuse victims still would have to wait for justice.

More at link.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 194 more.
Total: 3,874 (members: 195, guests: 3,679)

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
3,679
Total visitors
3,874
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,838
Messages
17,959,836
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top