The 2001 Coverup

[J. J. in Phila]

It's a good spot--and it's good to finally be able to have a thread for him knowing that he is alive.

Very, and there is proof. This is the guy Sandusky called prior to the indictment, and he left voice messages.

That leaves only Victim 8 out there. Well, only, along with Gricar.

 

[costalpilot]

This probably isn't the right spot but,

Victim 2 has stepped forward

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/26/3274073/victim-2-in-jerry-sandusky-case.html

good for him....interesting that jer was trying to buy his silence with penn state tickets at the last minute. what gall.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just watching Car Wash, 1976, (Ivan Dixon, George Carlin, the Pointer Sisters). They used the term "horsing around" for a practical joke.

 

[Rlaub44]

I like that scenario because it would also give a reason for Gricar to walk away. Perhaps he learned about the 2001 incident in 2005. He knew one day Sandusky's crimes would be exposed. He realized that his warning would be perceived as special treatment for the football team. Or he just realized he made a horrible decision. Either way, he did not want to deal with the fall-out, so he orchestrated his disappearance.


JMO

When JJ first speculated about Gricar giving a "warning", it just didn't pass the smell test for me. First, it would reflect worse on Gricar than on the PSU heads, so that wouldn't necessarily been enough reason for them to cover-up 2001.

Second, Gricar was notoriously unafraid to go after PSU football players for misdeeds, and his brother Tony had mentioned that he had no love lost for PSU, so why would he do them or Sandusky any favors?

Third, we know that Schreffler and Ralston accompanied Gricar to the meeting with Gantner, so if it regarded any warning like that, Schreffler, who admitted thinking they had enough for charges, should have mentioned it since the story broke. We have seen what happens when you conceal information regarding this situation.

Although interesting, I think it is quite far-fetched. Then again, I have been surprised a lot since November.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

When JJ first speculated about Gricar giving a "warning", it just didn't pass the smell test for me. First, it would reflect worse on Gricar than on the PSU heads, so that wouldn't necessarily been enough reason for them to cover-up 2001.

Nothing involving the DA's Office and Sandusky in 1998 passes the smell test. There was a solid case, with multiple witnesses, multiple victims, an admission, and the case wasn't prosecuted. The "abuse person" in the office was removed from the case. DPW at least claims never to have received key information in the case.

Second, Gricar was notoriously unafraid to go after PSU football players for misdeeds, and his brother Tony had mentioned that he had no love lost for PSU, so why would he do them or Sandusky any favors?

Yet we know he didn't prosecute.

Third, we know that Schreffler and Ralston accompanied Gricar to the meeting with Gantner, so if it regarded any warning like that, Schreffler, who admitted thinking they had enough for charges, should have mentioned it since the story broke. We have seen what happens when you conceal information regarding this situation.

He was never asked about that meeting, which might be unrelated. Conversely, Schreffler might have been requested not to say anything about it to the AG, because it was related to the perjury case.

Although interesting, I think it is quite far-fetched. Then again, I have been surprised a lot since November.

I have heard some stuff in this regard. While the 10/13/98 meeting might have been for some other purpose, that would not preclude a decision "not to prosecute if Sandusky would get help with the problem" situation.

I would not be surprised in the least if that was what happened.

 

[BigCat]

I have heard some stuff in this regard. While the 10/13/98 meeting might have been for some other purpose, that would not preclude a decision "not to prosecute if Sandusky would get help with the problem" situation.

I would not be surprised in the least if that was what happened.

** Respectfully snipped**

Louis Freeh said in his press conference, "at the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building."

How does he know that? He must have learned it from the two remaining PSU employees who were on the football staff in 98: Larry Johnson and Fran Ganter. Perhaps Ganter told Freeh about the warning and that it wasn't heeded. Just speculation on my part, of course, but Freeh seemed pretty confident Paterno knew about the 98 allegation; I'm guessing he had more evidence than Curley's email.

 

[Reader]

Nothing involving the DA's Office and Sandusky in 1998 passes the smell test. There was a solid case, with multiple witnesses, multiple victims, an admission, and the case wasn't prosecuted. The "abuse person" in the office was removed from the case. DPW at least claims never to have received key information in the case.



Yet we know he didn't prosecute.



He was never asked about that meeting, which might be unrelated. Conversely, Schreffler might have been requested not to say anything about it to the AG, because it was related to the perjury case.



I have heard some stuff in this regard. While the 10/13/98 meeting might have been for some other purpose, that would not preclude a decision "not to prosecute if Sandusky would get help with the problem" situation.

I would not be surprised in the least if that was what happened.

BBM- I know you have probably posted where the info about this meeting came from before but I missed it and would like to read it if there is a link? TIA

Another hypothetical: Maybe Gricar had a source (one of the boys? another mother? someone in the football progarm? one of the officers?) who informed him that PSU had done nothing to stop JS from abusing boys at their facilities as agreed in 1998 and 2001, and he got fed up with the situation and planned to file charges. Maybe JS or one of the cowardly 4 found out about his plans....and wanted to meet with him....??

 

[BigCat]

BBM- I know you have probably posted where the info about this meeting came from before but I missed it and would like to read it if there is a link? TIA

Another hypothetical: Maybe Gricar had a source (one of the boys? another mother? someone in the football progarm? one of the officers?) who informed him that PSU had done nothing to stop JS from abusing boys at their facilities as agreed in 1998 and 2001, and he got fed up with the situation and planned to file charges. Maybe JS or one of the cowardly 4 found out about his plans....and wanted to meet with him....??

Ray Gricar mystery: DA's privacy adds to intrigue surrounding his disappearance

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/ray_gricar_mystery.html

The hour-long recording is mostly inaudible. However, Sloane’s own voice says this on the tape:

“Oct. 13, 1998. Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, Gricar. Investigation going to Penn State meeting. Ray. Fran Ganter. Ron Schreffler is taking us to the football building and I will finish this memo, Sue, and either Ray will type something, handwrite something or he’ll tell me to dictate this and I’ll give you the tape when we get back. Thanks.”

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BBM- I know you have probably posted where the info about this meeting came from before but I missed it and would like to read it if there is a link? TIA

Another hypothetical: Maybe Gricar had a source (one of the boys? another mother? someone in the football progarm? one of the officers?) who informed him that PSU had done nothing to stop JS from abusing boys at their facilities as agreed in 1998 and 2001, and he got fed up with the situation and planned to file charges. Maybe JS or one of the cowardly 4 found out about his plans....and wanted to meet with him....??

The meeting was October 13, 1998 so we can rule out it being related to 2001.

 

[Reader]

The meeting was October 13, 1998 so we can rule out it being related to 2001.

No, I was thinking about another meeting that could have taken place some time around Gricar's disappearance in my hypothetical....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No, I was thinking about another meeting that could have taken place some time around Gricar's disappearance in my hypothetical....

Possibly, though there is no evidence of it.

 

[Reader]

That's the reason I called it a 'hypothetical'....

 

[Rlaub44]

** Respectfully snipped**

Louis Freeh said in his press conference, "at the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building."

How does he know that? He must have learned it from the two remaining PSU employees who were on the football staff in 98: Larry Johnson and Fran Ganter. Perhaps Ganter told Freeh about the warning and that it wasn't heeded. Just speculation on my part, of course, but Freeh seemed pretty confident Paterno knew about the 98 allegation; I'm guessing he had more evidence than Curley's email.

I sure wish Freeh had included any other evidence in his report, if he had it. He seemed very confident about it, but didn't include any documentation for why he was so confident.

All we have is that "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Then we have Joe's handwritten notes on Sandusky's retirement plans indicating "No to 2nd Mile - liability problems". Other than the janitors in 2000, have we heard any other sightings of Sandusky bringing kids into Lasch until McQueary saw him in 2001? It seems like Sandusky was careful not to bring them around during regular business hours, if you know what I mean.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I sure wish Freeh had included any other evidence in his report, if he had it. He seemed very confident about it, but didn't include any documentation for why he was so confident.

You have to remember something: Gricar knew. Now, there has been no public suggestion that anyone else knew.

All we have is that "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Then we have Joe's handwritten notes on Sandusky's retirement plans indicating "No to 2nd Mile - liability problems". Other than the janitors in 2000, have we heard any other sightings of Sandusky bringing kids into Lasch until McQueary saw him in 2001? It seems like Sandusky was careful not to bring them around during regular business hours, if you know what I mean.

1. "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." That would indicate that, at that point Paterno was not in contact with Gricar.

2. "No to 2nd Mile - liability problems". That could indicate a worry about injury from an accident, a slip in the shower or a child crushing his fingers in the weight room.

 

[BigCat]

I sure wish Freeh had included any other evidence in his report, if he had it. He seemed very confident about it, but didn't include any documentation for why he was so confident.

All we have is that "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Then we have Joe's handwritten notes on Sandusky's retirement plans indicating "No to 2nd Mile - liability problems". Other than the janitors in 2000, have we heard any other sightings of Sandusky bringing kids into Lasch until McQueary saw him in 2001? It seems like Sandusky was careful not to bring them around during regular business hours, if you know what I mean.

If you go to page 54 of the Freeh report, it states that victims 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8 were assaulted in the Lasch Building between 98 and 2001. You would think some people would have noticed. I do recall victim 4 testifying that he believed that assistant coaches Tom Bradley and Fran Ganter may have lingered in the shower because they suspected something inappropriate going on. He didn't specify which years, however.

 

[Rlaub44]

If you go to page 54 of the Freeh report, it states that victims 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8 were assaulted in the Lasch Building between 98 and 2001. You would think some people would have noticed. I do recall victim 4 testifying that he believed that assistant coaches Tom Bradley and Fran Ganter may have lingered in the shower because they suspected something inappropriate going on. He didn't specify which years, however.

Perhaps, but the two times that we know that he was caught at Lasch with children were both later at night, when the witnesses (McQueary and the janitors) were surprised anyone was there.

 

[BigCat]

You have to remember something: Gricar knew. Now, there has been no public suggestion that anyone else knew.

1. "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." That would indicate that, at that point Paterno was not in contact with Gricar.

2. "No to 2nd Mile - liability problems". That could indicate a worry about injury from an accident, a slip in the shower or a child crushing his fingers in the weight room.

"it" could refer to the DPW investigation. The Freeh report states that Harmon continued to provide updates to Schultz about DPW's role in the investigation. The locals didn't control that investigation, hence "coach" was anxious.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"it" could refer to the DPW investigation. The Freeh report states that Harmon continued to provide updates to Schultz about DPW's role in the investigation. The locals didn't control that investigation, hence "coach" was anxious.

That could be it! The e-mails were referring about waiting for DPW to bring its psychologist. We can strike conclusion 1. Good point!

 

[rlc]

The email from Curley after talking to JVP--I read that as JVP, out of loyalty, feeling uncomfortable with the idea of reporting on an old friend's misdeeds without alerting him first. I think JVP and TC decided that the decent thing to do was to let Sandusky know that they knew and that something had to be done, go with him to alert the Second Mile, and allow the Second Mile to proceed. Their motivations may have been good--to give the Second Mile to assess the impact this was going to have on the children they served, and to handle it in the way they deemed fit. IMO, the most important piece of missing information is whether TC notified the Second Mile, and what happened from there. I think a further investigation into the Second Mile should be a top priority.

The recording: is the audible part at the beginning or end of it? I wonder if Sloane wanted to record the meeting, and that little message was intended as a cover for why he had the recorder.

Gricar: in the months before he disappeared, TC would have just entered the AG office, right? And RFG had been in TC's company multiple times in those months. Even though there may not have been a known open investigation into this case at that time, isn't it possible that as a result of TC entering the office, old information became relevant and they had a disagreement over it? i.e. TC finding out that RFG did not press charges?

 

[rlc]

I think one of the problems with looking at this in hindsight is that we think people *knew* what information was given to them (since we now know it to be true and can see all of the pieces fit together).

So, the first time I read the "unless he admits to a problem" statement, I took it as "if he confesses, we will go easy on him." There is a good chance that what was really going on was that these guys had not been able to accept that JS really was sexually abusing children (I cannot imagine anything more difficult to comprehend when first confronted with it--that a man who was known to me for 30 years as a role model and community activist for young boys was actually hurting them. Look how hard it is for some of us to accept that JVP did what he did). Anyway, what that statement could have meant was--we don't think he did this, but we have to investigate it, and the best way to do that with the fewest negative consequences to the people involved (including the boys who were mentored by JS) is to have DPW investigate. If he actually confessed to a problem, then we would have to take the appropriate measures--report it to the police, etc. But if, as we expect, he says this is a misunderstanding, we will just do what we are obligated to do to verify that it is a misunderstanding.

On the same note, if RFG believed that it was inappropriate showering, but not sexual, he may have been considering the fallout to all the children who benefited from the Second Mile. If that was the case, and he made the decision not to prosecute because he believed that a, it was not sexual in nature, and b, he was protecting children by letting it die instead of allowing the information to become public, he would most certainly be distraught in 2005 if he got wind of confirmed sexual abuse.