From Diary of Freeh Investigator Kathleen McChesney:
Got report on -----------; 3 reports
1988: Administrative Information: approaches a 13 yo boy outside of rec hall, boy tells his father & father calls police.------- says he was doing survey about ppl looking for boys; he writes to v. Says he'll go to a counselor & report says there are other similar reports - they accept his verbal promise
1993 - Same thing approached 16 year old invited to wrestling room, charged w/disorderly conduct & he signs a thing that he won't come on property & Amendola signs the form to stay out of REC Hall & IM unless he - Not charged
1995 Criminal trespass at IM building, Sowerby saw him there & checked & found him, confronted him & spoke to Gricar who said he spoke with Harmon & Schmidt; advised officer not to file charges - said he'd talk to Amendola about ------- - handled by Schreffler
From 2016 DOE Report on Penn State Clery Compliance:
The Department notes that this was not the first time that Penn State dealt with an influential member of the
community that exhibited behaviors consistent with those of a potential child predator in a lenient manner.
Specifically, in 1988, the PSUPD questioned a man who had been reported for inappropriate interactions with
teenaged boys outside of a University recreational building. The suspect, a male in his 50s, approached a 13 year-
old boy at 9:45 p.m. and told the boy he was taking a survey. He asked the boy “if he was strong” and “if he was a
wrestler.” When approached by PSUPD, the suspect confirmed the reports and was directed by a PSUPD officer to
cease all such activities and leave campus. Five years later in 1993, the same individual engaged in similar acts on
campus, this time with a 16 year-old boy. He was reported to PSUPD by the boy’s father. This time, the incident
was investigated and determined to be disorderly conduct/harassment. The subject was issued a “Notice Against
Trespass,” which proscribed strict limitations on his access of various Penn State facilities. These limitations were
repeatedly violated. For reasons that remain unclear, no criminal charges were pursued despite multiple violations
of the no trespass order. In fact, the subject continued to enjoy access to the campus facilities for the next two
decades, up to and including 2016
