Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #6

[BigCat]

Mr. Schreffler and Jerry Lauro, a child abuse investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, interviewed Mr. Sandusky on June 1, 1998. During that interview at the Lasch football building on Penn State's campus, Mr. Schreffler said the man admitted to showering with boys.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1gtqFEiWe

So a detective and a child abuse investigator interview Sandusky at the football building without Joe Paterno or Tim Curley learning about it? I find that difficult to believe.

 

[Quiche]

So far, I think I'm liking this judge-- seemed no nonsense, and this case will have to fend off a ton of it from Sandusky's camp. I am feeling assured the punishment he deserves will be meted out.

I love Fessel's idea about that statue, as well. Except, I envision 10 young boys standing around together with their backpacks (gym bags, ball bags, cleats) representing the age when their childhood ended: 8, 10, 11, 14 etc.. I want their diminutive frames memorialized (not literal likenesses, of course). An homage to the children they were should stand where Paterno is now, it's fair-- a little fairness would be nice. :yes:

(Paterno is memorialized all over that campus, it won't hurt his "image" at all to lose one glorification, imo)

 

[Rlaub44]

I guess we'll find out if he was telling the truth THIS time but I doubt it...if there was a report the agency should have had a record and somebody from the agency should haved testified before the GJ. I'm very interested in finding out if they did get a report and what they did about it....if they were part of this cover up, they are in deep dodo.

Unfortunately, under the Pennsylvania Code, if the report was investigated and determined "unfounded", both the county CYS agency and the statewide ChildLine are to expunge the record within 120 calendar days from the date the report was received by ChildLine.

So even if it was reported, there may no longer be any record of it - although my personal belief is that nobody called CYS.

 

[Reader]

Front page on this morning Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is an interesting read.

Retired detective describes 1998 Sandusky investigation
Believed charges warranted in case
Sunday, December 18, 2011
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Retired University Park Detective Ronald Schreffler believed he had enough evidence in 1998 to charge then-Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky with something after the man admitted to a boy's mother to showering naked with her son.

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday, the day after Mr. Sandusky chose to waive his preliminary hearing on 52 counts that accuse him of molesting 10 boys over the last several years.

Instead, then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar told Mr. Schreffler he could not file charges. The detective said Mr. Gricar gave no explanation.

"You don't question Ray," Mr. Schreffler said, calling him the best prosecutor he'd ever worked with. "Ray was not a person to be intimidated. If he didn't feel the elements were there ..."

THE SANDUSKY CASE
» See the PG's coverage
At the time, Mr. Gricar spoke to Mr. Schreffle



Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1gtLZhjYr

Further from this link:

Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn't indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution's case even more difficult.

"It'd be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn't any abuse."

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mr. Lauro said he closed the case because he lacked substantial evidence that there was abuse.

"It didn't meet the criteria," Mr. Lauro said. "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

Well, I think Mr. Lauro made the wrong decision per what has been said in articles and some posters that this was indecent exposure at least.

So sad and frustrating to look back now and see that if these 3 men had just filed a complaint on JS instead of letting him get away with this behavior, it may have prevented the abuses committed in years after.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Further from this link:

Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn't indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution's case even more difficult.

"It'd be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn't any abuse."

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mr. Lauro said he closed the case because he lacked substantial evidence that there was abuse.

"It didn't meet the criteria," Mr. Lauro said. "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

Well, I think Mr. Lauro made the wrong decision per what has been said in articles and some posters that this was indecent exposure at least.

So sad and frustrating to look back now and see that if these 3 men had just filed a complaint on JS instead of letting him get away with this behavior, it may have prevented the abuses committed in years after.

According to Mr. Lauro, the DA dropped the case first:

Lauro said Schreffler never told him the details of Sandusky’s confession at the victim’s house.

“I remember my last conversation with him concerning him hiding in that room,” Lauro said. “He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html

 

[ThoughtFox]

Let's face it, these guys who "investigated" the abuse let down the public who were paying their salaries. They didn't do their civic duty. It's almost impossible to choose one guy who is worse than the others.

Either they didn't believe the evidence, they were in denial about a "good" person at Penn doing such a thing, or they were just too scared to take the heat that a real investigation would bring. Perhaps all three, so it got brushed under the rug, deleted, erased, whatever.

And who really paid? The victims who felt that no one believed them, and the boys who were abused later. :maddening: They threw those children to the wolves and I hope they are having nightmares about their culpability now.

ETA: I personally believe that if they didn't get the "details" then it is on their heads. They didn't ask. They didn't want to know.

 

[Reader]

According to Mr. Lauro, the DA dropped the case first:

Lauro said Schreffler never told him the details of Sandusky’s confession at the victim’s house.

“I remember my last conversation with him concerning him hiding in that room,” Lauro said. “He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html

Yep, I remember reading that before....so conflicting stories all around and Gricar is not here to tell his side....

I agree with ThoughtFox's post below...nobody asked or really wanted to know...

And I'll say again, it was a poor boy from Second Mile whose mother had no real presense or influence in the community vs. Sandusky who did so...there you go.

I'll bet if it had been the son of one of these men or their friends in power, it would have been treated differently.

 

[Reader]

Dirty secrets can be found in any town

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/12/dirty_secrets_can_be_found_in.html

The Penn State and Syracuse University child sex abuse scandals, as horrific as they might be, are not isolated incidents as we would like to believe. Every city and town in this country is being stalked by child predators who use the very organizations designed to build young boys into men as their hunting grounds.
------

I used to wonder how my life would be different if Richie lost the “eeny, meeny, miny, moe” that night, but now realize that it wasn’t random at all. Cal used Richie as a tool to get to me. Richie belonged to a close and loving family, and his mother would never have tolerated the amount of attention Cal began to lavish on me.
-----

There were so many people who knew or should have known there was something inappropriate about our relationship. Cal’s wife, who interrupted him sexually abusing me at least a dozen times but never quite caught him in the act, had to know. Clearly someone at the church said something, but no one ever intervened or bothered to pull me aside and ask me a few questions.


More at link....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yep, I remember reading that before....so conflicting stories all around and Gricar is not here to tell his side....

I agree with ThoughtFox's post below...nobody asked or really wanted to know...

And I'll say again, it was a poor boy from Second Mile whose mother had no real presense or influence in the community vs. Sandusky who did so...there you go.

I'll bet if it had been the son of one of these men or their friends in power, it would have been treated differently.

Well, Schreffler does not contradict Lauro. He never said he gave Lauro all the details, and it would be unusual to tell one potential witness about what another potential witness saw.

Schreffler definitely reported it up the chain to both his supervisor and the DA. Further, the decision to prosecute was the District Attorney's, not Lauro's.

 

[Reader]

Well, Schreffler does not contradict Lauro. He never said he gave Lauro all the details, and it would be unusual to tell one potential witness about what another potential witness saw.

Schreffler definitely reported it up the chain to both his supervisor and the DA. Further, the decision to prosecute was the District Attorney's, not Lauro's.

Look, all of these men knew Sandusky had been in a shower naked with a young, minor boy, had touched him intimately and he had admitted it. All this CYA mess doesn't negate the fact that they had a case against him and none of them did what they were supposed to do...protect this child and others from a predator.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Look, all of these men knew Sandusky had been in a shower naked with a young, minor boy, had touched him intimately and he had admitted it. All this CYA mess doesn't negate the fact that they had a case against him and none of them did what they were supposed to do...protect this child and others from a predator.

I don't think you can blame Schreffler. He did a full investigation, had an approximately 100 page report and sent it up the line to be prosecuted. He worked with CYS. He can't prosecute the case nor can he order CYS people around.

A lot of folks rightly deserved to be blamed, but Schreffler is not one of them. His supervisor seems to have done the same thing.

I still cannot believe that this happened.

 

[BigCat]

Michael Madeira caught a break. His wife is related to one of the Sandusky's adopted children, which allowed him to pass this hot potato up to the AG's office. Who knows what would have become of victim one's complaint if the DA had handled it?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Michael Madeira caught a break. His wife is related to one of the Sandusky's adopted children, which allowed him to pass this hot potato up to the AG's office. Who knows what would have become of victim one's complaint if the DA had handled it?

He still did the right thing, and I've been a long term critic of MTM. He could, under the statute, have claimed lack of resources and turned it over as well.

 

[Quiche]

I've felt that Gricar didn't prosecute the '98 case because it wasn't enough to stop him for long... in my estimation, it wasn't ironclad, iow, a slap on the wrist for Sandusky. It has always concerned me that Gricar could have been watching and waiting until he had a case that would put Sandusky off the streets for the rest of his life, and then he was disappeared (whether he did it himself, someone else did it, or he walked away with a new identity, it doesn't matter in this context he was effectively off the case forever, imo).

I know, it's what I want to think, but I've seen it personally in a child abuse case-- it was horrific, but only amounted to a possible sentence of a few measly years. It wasn't held over for trial after the pretrial hearings because there weren't enough counts against the man to make it worth their while. :tsktsk:

Well, here's the bigger case-- sure as the sun rises, a mammoth debacle that will dethrone a bevy of magnates. Every step taken toward exposing Sandusky's ritualistic predatory methods is now the equivalent of a heavy weight on the scales of justice. It's a sick reality, but there's no denying it's a better case now.

 

[azwriter]

For those who aren't fans of college football, the following schools have hired coaches since the season ended: Ohio State, Arizona, UCLA, Arizona State, Texas A&M, North Carolina, Kansas & Washington State. They all fired a coach and hired a coach within a 2 week span of time. The process is so rushed because no university administrator wants to leave the football team without a head coach for a prolonged period of time.

It's imperative that Penn State hire a head coach, soon than later. Most players are smart enough to figure out the current staff will not be around next year. When there is no one in charge to hold over a hundred aggressive young men accountable, there's the potential for trouble.

I came back to re-read your post BigCat. It has been on my mind since I first read it. Yours is a great observation. I know the team has a bowl appearance slated soon, but in many instances that doesn't stop a college team from announcing the name of a new coach for the coming season.

In my wildest dream, could this mean the Penn State Football program might be headed for being put on hold for a undeterminated period of time? Anyone else have those thoughts and do you think it would be a idea whose time has come while the legal matters of those involved from the school takes its course?

just my O

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I've felt that Gricar didn't prosecute the '98 case because it wasn't enough to stop him for long... in my estimation, it wasn't ironclad, iow, a slap on the wrist for Sandusky. It has always concerned me that Gricar could have been watching and waiting until he had a case that would put Sandusky off the streets for the rest of his life, and then he was disappeared (whether he did it himself, someone else did it, or he walked away with a new identity, it doesn't matter in this context he was effectively off the case forever, imo).

Had he been convicted of the felony, Sandusky would have been on the Meagan's Law list, possibly only for ten years. Further, TSM would not have left him near children again.

I really would not care if Sandusky would have been kept in prison for 100 years. He would not have been in a position to do what he is alleged to have done.

 

[BigCat]

I came back to re-read your post BigCat. It has been on my mind since I first read it. Yours is a great observation. I know the team has a bowl appearance slated soon, but in many instances that doesn't stop a college team from announcing the name of a new coach for the coming season.

In my wildest dream, could this mean the Penn State Football program might be headed for being put on hold for a undeterminated period of time? Anyone else have those thoughts and do you think it would be a idea whose time has come while the legal matters of those involved from the school takes its course?

just my O

It's the stated objective of PSU's president to de-emphasize football (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-12-06/penn-state-rodney-erickson-interview-football-emphasis/51686080/1) What exactly that means has yet to be seen. However, I can't imagine, under any circumstance, the football program ceasing to exist. Penn State, as a member of the Big 10 conference, is locked into a 2.7 billion dollar contract with ESPN and Fox to televise conference games for the next 12 years. To collect its share of the pie, Penn State must field a team. Without a team, they might even be asked to leave the conference, which would affect all PSU's athletic programs. Not going to happen.

So Penn State will have a football team. The fear among diehard Nittany Lions football fans is that future teams will not be as competitive as Paterno's teams. IMO, the near future is going to be rough; long term, Penn State will be OK. The challenge will be finding a head coach willing to take on the job NOW.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Well, Schreffler does not contradict Lauro. He never said he gave Lauro all the details, and it would be unusual to tell one potential witness about what another potential witness saw.

Schreffler definitely reported it up the chain to both his supervisor and the DA. Further, the decision to prosecute was the District Attorney's, not Lauro's.

I personally have a problem with the DA too. :twocents: All the way up the chain, these people lost sight of just who it was they were supposed to be protecting.

 

[BigCat]

Had he been convicted of the felony, Sandusky would have been on the Meagan's Law list, possibly only for ten years. Further, TSM would not have left him near children again.

I really would not care if Sandusky would have been kept in prison for 100 years. He would not have been in a position to do what he is alleged to have done.

Even a not guilty verdict would have had the same results, don't you think? Just look at Bernie Fine. He's a pariah, even though he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Even a not guilty verdict would have had the same results, don't you think? Just look at Bernie Fine. He's a pariah, even though he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

Well, I think he would have been isolated from children. Sorry, but I don't a jury drawn from anyone other than the executive board of NAMBLA would say that bear hugging an unrelated 10 year old in the shower while you both were naked is not Corruption of Minors. It is not a felony, but it is enough to warn.