The 1998 Investigation

[J. J. in Phila]

I was just looking at the conglomeration of things in this article, and the piece on Harmon's retirement caught my eye. I found it interesting that he announced his retirement shortly after Gricar disappeared...Possible connection?

In any event, I find Harmon interesting for a variety of reasons, and wonder if he committed perjury himself when he said he was unaware that psychologists had made reports in 1998. I believe he told Schreffler to close the investigation, and he made sure to file the 1998 report away in a strange way - why?

http://media.sportsbybrooks.com/201...epolicechieflied1998sanduskyinvestigation.pdf

Immunity? He might not have read the reports.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Is it possible that the mysterious 10/98 "investigation" at Lasch that the relevant parties attended along with Ganter had to do with Victim 4? Victim 4's experience with Sandusky occurred during this time, and he said Ganter had seen him and Sandusky in the shower. Perhaps Ganter was reporting something?

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...coach-and-administrator-at-penn-state-677069/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ial-witness-victim-4-testimony_n_1587536.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Is it possible that the mysterious 10/98 "investigation" at Lasch that the relevant parties attended along with Ganter had to do with Victim 4? Victim 4's experience with Sandusky occurred during this time, and he said Ganter had seen him and Sandusky in the shower. Perhaps Ganter was reporting something?

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...coach-and-administrator-at-penn-state-677069/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ial-witness-victim-4-testimony_n_1587536.html

Yes, but that was never reported to LE, unless it was Ganter doing the reporting. I have never heard any suggestion, on the record or off, that RFG knew about Victim 4. Just because I didn't hear about it does not make it impossible.

 

[nittanylioness234]

All the parties were there, so it could have been Ganter reporting something to law enforcement (Gricar, Schreffler, Ralston) at that time. This is my best guess of what the 10/98 "investigation" was about, not that there aren't any other possible explanations. But if it was about Victim 4, why, again, was nothing done?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

All the parties were there, so it could have been Ganter reporting something to law enforcement (Gricar, Schreffler, Ralston) at that time. This is my best guess of what the 10/98 "investigation" was about, not that there aren't any other possible explanations. But if it was about Victim 4, why, again, was nothing done?

If you where to have three separate victims, with multiple witnesses, and the DA/police did not inform DPW, we are not talking "colossal lapse of judgment." We would be talking coverup, and possibly, conspiracy.

I obviously hope you are wrong.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Even if they wanted to cover-up or conspire, for whatever reason, how could any reasonable person think that all parties, victims included, would stay silent for the rest of their lives? It makes so sense, unless someone, or multiple people, with more power told them to keep silent...and that's quite scary.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Even if they wanted to cover-up or conspire, for whatever reason, how could any reasonable person think that all parties, victims included, would stay silent for the rest of their lives? It makes so sense, unless someone, or multiple people, with more power told them to keep silent...and that's quite scary.

They had that, something called the Pennsylvania State University. Half the adults in the county either are students there, were students there, or work there. How many people have you heard yelling, "We are Penn State. These sanctions hurt us!" They did it to protect reputations, theirs, but saw it as protecting PSU.

The Tickle Monster in the cloisters guarded by a select group of administrative leaders that had the ability to subvert others to their cause.

Central Pennsylvania Gothic

 

[nittanylioness234]

They could subvert law enforcement, too? They could table DPW and CYS and anyone else looking into it? Curley, Schultz, and Spanier could do that? That's a bit of a stretch for me. If it was something like this, I think it would have to come from an even higher authority. Why would Gricar risk his reputation on Curley, Schultz, and Spanier?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

They could subvert law enforcement, too? They could table DPW and CYS and anyone else looking into it? Curley, Schultz, and Spanier could do that? That's a bit of a stretch for me. If it was something like this, I think it would have to come from an even higher authority. Why would Gricar risk his reputation on Curley, Schultz, and Spanier?

DPW (not really CYS) wasn't subverted, they were just their old incompetent selves. They didn't ask for the Chambers Report so nobody told them.

The Three Stooges were representing the most powerful institution in the county. It was not only the top employer in the county, but about half the adult population was tied to it as either students, alumni or employees. That institution gave them power. Gricar had to face that population, at least those registered to vote. His reputation would be intact if it doesn't come out, and unless he crossed a line, he legally could decline to prosecute. He's not planning to run for DA indefinitely, just one more time, and after that, who cares about his reputation. He gets a pension if he looks like a genius or an idiot.

Even if he did cross that line, what are the Three Stooges going to, admit to covering up the activities of a pedophile. It all stays in the cloister, with no one the wiser on the outside.

Your theory that the meeting was about Victim 4, if true, might indicate that Gricar did cross that line. I hope you are wrong and I have never any suggestion that the meeting was about Victim 4 or anyone.

 

[nittanylioness234]

I don't want to believe that anyone did anything wrong, except Sandusky, despite all the evidence. I keep looking for something logical that can explain everything away. Maybe it's just stupidity. Maybe it is as you say. Or maybe it's something much worse. There is still a lot of information that hasn't been released. I guess we have to keep waiting to see what happens.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't want to believe that anyone did anything wrong, except Sandusky, despite all the evidence. I keep looking for something logical that can explain everything away. Maybe it's just stupidity. Maybe it is as you say. Or maybe it's something much worse. There is still a lot of information that hasn't been released. I guess we have to keep waiting to see what happens.

Well, I am very pleased to say that I have never before heard the suggestion that Gricar was aware of any of the other victims except Victim 6 and B. K., obviously. If he were, and it was not reported to DPW, he could have faced the summary charges Curley and Schultz did.

I hope it is not much worse. For Gricar, the more that has come out, the worse it makes him look. It still does not look bad enough to be criminal, mercifully.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Why would Sara Ganim write about Gricar and Amendola...in 6/2012, Gricar had already been gone 7 years....why connect the 2 in this article, especially saying that Amendola could get "deals" from Gricar and Madeira "that no one else could get?"

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sanduskys_defense_attorn.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Why would Sara Ganim write about Gricar and Amendola...in 6/2012, Gricar had already been gone 7 years....why connect the 2 in this article, especially saying that Amendola could get "deals" from Gricar and Madeira "that no one else could get?"

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sanduskys_defense_attorn.html

I think she was showing how good a defense attorney Amendola is. They did fight each other in court. Prior to Sandusky, I actually quoted him in a blog regarding Gricar.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is one blog where I quoted Amendola: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html

It was written more than a year prior to Sandusky hitting the fan.

You might want to read it; it actually cites the tremendous amount of good Gricar did as DA. One of the unfortunate aspects of the Sandusky case is that many people now know Gricar only through his handling of the Sandusky case.

That is a mistake I hope I have not made.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Is there any relation between Wayne Weaver (PSU police, who signed the 1998 police report) and Shawn Weaver, current chief of Bellefonte PD?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Is there any relation between Wayne Weaver (PSU police, who signed the 1998 police report) and Shawn Weaver, current chief of Bellefonte PD?

Not that I know of, but I have looked at those relationships. Note that Shawn Weaver was not on BPD until January 2006.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Since we have mentioned him in the context of the 10/13/98 meeting, Steve Sloane plead guilty to selling marijuana today. It was at a pre-trial conference:

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/07/22/3698894/former-centre-county-district.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

According to the Freeh Report, RFG made the decision to close the investigation between 5/27/98 and 6/1/98 (p. 46). That is consistent with the Spanier Presentment that says he closed the case before Sandusky was interviewed (pdf pp. 4-5); the sting was on 5/19/98. That was received by CYS (note not the DA's Office) on 5/21/98.

Memorial Say was 5/25/98.

Gamin wrote that the report was received two days before Gricar reached his decision, presuming it was received at the DA's Office.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

All of those things are consistent.

Neither the Seasock nor the Chambers reports were admissible in court in 1998. Lauro said he never saw either report (which does not speak highly of Lauro's competence).

 

[BigCat]

I read PennLive the morning after McQueary and Harmon testified at the preliminary hearing. There were over 350 comments on the article about McQueary and only 7 on the article about Harmon (and a couple of those were off topic). Not surprising, I suppose, since many of the true believers view McQueary as an apostate. However, I think Harmon's testimony was more interesting. I don't see how it is possible to reconcile Harmon's testimony with Schultz's grand jury testimony.

Q: Sir, it might surprise you to know that the '98 investigation was handled by your police department and there's a --

A: In its entirety?

Q: There's a 95-page police report on that incident.

A: In its entirety?

Q: Correct.

A: Wow. I thought it was turned over to the child protection agency for investigation.

It seems clear from Harmon's testimony that he was giving Schultz's updates on the police investigation as well as the DPW investigation. One of the defendant's attorneys asked Harmon if Schultz attempted to interfere in the investigation (Harmon answered, "no"); however, if Schultz didn't know the PSU police department was investigating Sandusky, then why would he interfere?

I hope for Schultz's sake his attorney doesn't plan to go with the "it was just a crazy misunderstanding" defense. His attorney must attack Harmon's credibility.

Will Schultz's defense be that Harmon deliberately withheld information about the police investigation? Did he not turn over the police report as requested in 2001? Will Schultz testify that he did actually tell Harmon about the 2001 allegation?

I read on one the PSU football board about a rumor that Harmon received immunity to testify. I have no idea if that's true or not. I know we learned that Schultz's secretary received immunity, so why wouldn't it be public knowledge if Harmon received immunity as well?

I guess we'll have to wait until next year to find out the answers to these questions.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The only thing that was questionable on Harmon was how he classified the report. It wasn't criminal (though there could be a Clery Act violation). I don't see why he would need immunity.

Harmon briefed Schultz, but the key word is "briefed." Schultz would have not have necessarily been given all the details, just a summary. Schultz's should have looked.