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

[J. J. in Phila]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 *advertiser censored* 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]

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]

Postal inspector is investigating Second Mile: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/the_second_mile_under_investig.html

 

[waltzingmatilda]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Chambers report.

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

 

[Tipstaff]

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]

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."