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

[InTheGarden]

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.

snip

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?

snip

Let's not forget what Penn State did for Schultz when he retired:
Gary Schultz spent more than 40 years at Penn State University, so the school honored him by putting his name on a child care center that opened in September.

Read more: PSU finance man Gary Schultz praised for 40 'distinguished' years - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_765876.html#ixzz1q9Vf8XFT

Penn State names a child care center after the man in charge of their police department who protected a likely pedophile. Am I missing something here?

 

[Rlaub44]

Let's not forget what Penn State did for Schultz when he retired:
Gary Schultz spent more than 40 years at Penn State University, so the school honored him by putting his name on a child care center that opened in September.

Read more: PSU finance man Gary Schultz praised for 40 'distinguished' years - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_765876.html#ixzz1q9Vf8XFT

Penn State names a child care center after the man in charge of their police department who protected a likely pedophile. Am I missing something here?

The irony is incredible. The Gary Schultz Child Care Center was dedicated on September 23, 2011, about 6 weeks before the general public learned of the allegations against Sandusky, but well after the center's namesake testified before the grand jury, and the board and Spanier would have been well aware of his role in failing to report the allegations. Could the BOT and administration really have failed to foresee what a horrible idea this would be? Or had they convinced themselves that nothing was going to result from the grand jury?

 

[BigCat]

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?

I knew you would find a way to bring it back to "poor JoePa is a victim." :clap:

 

[Tipstaff]

From the Grand Jury Finds of Fact

"Victim 4 Remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State which preceded Sandusky's retirement. Sandusky told Victim 4 not to tell anyone about the meeting. The meeting occurred in May, 1999."


Victim 4 was a Second Mile Participant - Victim 4 would frequently stay overnight at Toftrees with Sandusky and the football team prior to home games - Sandusky's wife was never present at Toftrees. Per the findings.


Victim 4 would attend the pre-game banquet and sit with Sandusky at the coaches table.


So Joe Paterno give JS the bad news in 1999 after the 1998 incident - then Sandusky continues his behavior for the next 12 years and everybody wishes they had done more or claims they didn't know.

The good thing about a trial is that the vile and disgusting details will be public again and there will be names and faces and lives examined. The Victims of Jerry Sandusky will have their day in court and the people who looked the other way will be publicly outed and this includes the great and powerful OZ aka Joe Paterno and all.

 

[Rlaub44]

I knew you would find a way to bring it back to "poor JoePa is a victim." :clap:

And where did I say that? I, like many others, want the responsible parties to be held accountable. My beloved Governor went out of his way again recently to bash the dead guy, without a word toward Curley, Schultz, Spanier, the police agencies, DPW, or for that matter, Sandusky himself.

While Paterno could have done more, he did more correctly in this situation than any of the names I listed above. NOWHERE did I call JoePa a victim, and I resent the insinuation.

 

[ThoughtFox]

From the Grand Jury Finds of Fact

"Victim 4 Remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State which preceded Sandusky's retirement. Sandusky told Victim 4 not to tell anyone about the meeting. The meeting occurred in May, 1999."

Victim 4 was a Second Mile Participant - Victim 4 would frequently stay overnight at Toftrees with Sandusky and the football team prior to home games - Sandusky's wife was never present at Toftrees. Per the findings.

Victim 4 would attend the pre-game banquet and sit with Sandusky at the coaches table.

So Joe Paterno give JS the bad news in 1999 after the 1998 incident - then Sandusky continues his behavior for the next 12 years and everybody wishes they had done more or claims they didn't know.

The good thing about a trial is that the vile and disgusting details will be public again and there will be names and faces and lives examined. The Victims of Jerry Sandusky will have their day in court and the people who looked the other way will be publicly outed and this includes the great and powerful OZ aka Joe Paterno and all.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating a point that I think some are missing here. You can't "unknow" or "conveniently forget" that someone is a child molester, especially when you see them out and about with children all the time.

And we aren't talking about people who did this 100 years ago, but in modern times, with modern awareness campaigns and with television full of stories both real and fictional.

And while Paterno clearly had no "legal" ability to crack down on Sandusky, he knew what he was and ignored it. The good old innocent bystander defense.

But Paterno is really the lucky one. He is departed, and it's only his family and the school that have to bear the brunt of the trial. They have to shoulder the legacy of do-nothingness and indifference that he left behind.

 

[Rlaub44]

From the Grand Jury Finds of Fact

"Victim 4 Remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State which preceded Sandusky's retirement. Sandusky told Victim 4 not to tell anyone about the meeting. The meeting occurred in May, 1999."


Victim 4 was a Second Mile Participant - Victim 4 would frequently stay overnight at Toftrees with Sandusky and the football team prior to home games - Sandusky's wife was never present at Toftrees. Per the findings.


Victim 4 would attend the pre-game banquet and sit with Sandusky at the coaches table.


So Joe Paterno give JS the bad news in 1999 after the 1998 incident - then Sandusky continues his behavior for the next 12 years and everybody wishes they had done more or claims they didn't know.

The good thing about a trial is that the vile and disgusting details will be public again and there will be names and faces and lives examined. The Victims of Jerry Sandusky will have their day in court and the people who looked the other way will be publicly outed and this includes the great and powerful OZ aka Joe Paterno and all.

And if, after the trial, no proof emerges that Paterno knew any details about the 1998 incident, I hope we can continue to focus on those people who have already been proven to have had the knowledge and power to have stopped Sandusky, including University police, PSU administration, District Attorneys, and the Department of Public Welfare; all of whom had more actual power than any college football coach, even ones that get tagged with condescending nicknames.

 

[ThoughtFox]

And if, after the trial, no proof emerges that Paterno knew any details about the 1998 incident, I hope we can continue to focus on those people who have already been proven to have had the knowledge and power to have stopped Sandusky, including University police, PSU administration, District Attorneys, and the Department of Public Welfare; all of whom had more actual power than any college football coach, even ones that get tagged with condescending nicknames.

I agree that there is plenty of blame to spread around, but we can't really pretend at this point that Paterno was just an ordinary coach going about ordinary business all the time.

When all of this started, many fans reacted as if Paterno was completely untouchable just because of his fame and revered position at the university.

And now we are supposed to believe he was always an old decrepit bureaucrat who didn't even know what his coaches were doing, and if he did he had no control over them?

I guess I just can't suspend belief and accept that a man who was synonymous with Penn State football wouldn't be informed about possible legal troubles with one of his staff members back in 1998. And there's the point that many have made - he didn't name Jerry his successor in 1999 - why not? To me the logical answer is that he knew about the kid in 1998.

But that could still be a coincidence, if you believe in coincidences.

On the other hand, Paterno just may not have believed the kid's story in 98. That still doesn't explain why he didn't act more aggressively when more victims came forth. And I think even more stuff is going to come out about what Paterno knew and when he knew it. I don't think it's going to be all that easy to separate him from the rest of the university and Second Mile crowd.

Jerry and Coach, 1999
Via Newsday

 

[Rlaub44]

I agree that there is plenty of blame to spread around, but we can't really pretend at this point that Paterno was just an ordinary coach going about ordinary business all the time.

When all of this started, many fans reacted as if Paterno was completely untouchable just because of his fame and revered position at the university.

And now we are supposed to believe he was always an old decrepit bureaucrat who didn't even know what his coaches were doing, and if he did he had no control over them?

I guess I just can't suspend belief and accept that a man who was synonymous with Penn State football wouldn't be informed about possible legal troubles with one of his staff members back in 1998. And there's the point that many have made - he didn't name Jerry his successor in 1999 - why not? To me the logical answer is that he knew about the kid in 1998.

But that could still be a coincidence, if you believe in coincidences.

On the other hand, Paterno just may not have believed the kid's story in 98. That still doesn't explain why he didn't act more aggressively when more victims came forth. And I think even more stuff is going to come out about what Paterno knew and when he knew it. I don't think it's going to be all that easy to separate him from the rest of the university and Second Mile crowd.

Jerry and Coach, 1999
Via Newsday​

I guess I understand people's suspicions, but if you review some of the earlier posts today reviewing the police report from 98, nobody from the university or the Second Mile were interviewed. Because of the sensitive nature of child abuse investigations, nobody other than the referral source and legal authorities are allowed to know the outcome of the investigation.

Many people like to ascribe omniscience to Coach Paterno, but the only person at the University who has been shown to have known about 98 was Schultz, and he claimed not to have ever read the report.

If the only people interviewed were Sandusky, the victim, the victim's mother, and the psychologist from Centre Co. CYS, which of them would have alerted Paterno? If the University police had done it, it would have been an ethical breach, because remember, they determined there was "nothing to it."

Even if someone at Lasch had observed the investigators with Sandusky, he could have simply claimed they were investigating an abuse report against one of the Second Mile kids, conveniently not sharing that he himself were the alleged perpetrator.

Concerning naming a successor, Paterno didn't even do that at any time during his next 13 years up to his firing, despite everyone believing Bradley was the logical choice. Why name a successor when you intend to coach until your death?

And as far as the posed picture above, it doesn't undo the numerous reports from that time period that Sandusky and Paterno were not close, and certainly not friends. The belief that Paterno had to know what Sandusky did in his off hours is, so far, unfounded.

 

[ThoughtFox]

RLaub44: Here's my answer - I don't believe Schultz.

He just doesn't want to admit that they knew about Jerry in 1998. :twocents:

In fact, I don't know why anything he says would be believable at this point.

Also, I've been around university faculties before and everyone knows everything about everyone. Even if LE told Shultz not to tell, and he pretends he saw nothing and knew nothing, he still would have told Paterno. I wish I could bet money on that - it's a sure bet. JMOO

 

[Tipstaff]

And if, after the trial, no proof emerges that Paterno knew any details about the 1998 incident, I hope we can continue to focus on those people who have already been proven to have had the knowledge and power to have stopped Sandusky, including University police, PSU administration, District Attorneys, and the Department of Public Welfare; all of whom had more actual power than any college football coach, even ones that get tagged with condescending nicknames.

Paterno said "I wish I had done more".

 

[Rlaub44]

Paterno said "I wish I had done more".

Yes he did. With the benefit of hindsight. Unlike any of the other case players, who still insist they did everything they could, the person who fulfilled his legal obligation, as well as his obligation under the policies of his university, wished he had gone the extra mile (not the Second Mile, please).

I don't view that statement as an admission that he knew everything and chose to let it go; I think it is an "if I knew then what I know now" kind of regret.

I also think his statement referenced the '02 incident, not the '98 incident which people are suggesting he had to have known about.

 

[Rlaub44]

RLaub44: Here's my answer - I don't believe Schultz.

He just doesn't want to admit that they knew about Jerry in 1998. :twocents:

In fact, I don't know why anything he says would be believable at this point.

Also, I've been around university faculties before and everyone knows everything about everyone. Even if LE told Shultz not to tell, and he pretends he saw nothing and knew nothing, he still would have told Paterno. I wish I could bet money on that - it's a sure bet. JMOO

Why? If the objective was to cover it up and sweep it under the rug, why tell Paterno? Was the message, "You better keep your man in line?" That would mean they assumed there was truth to what the investigators didn't believe.

Otherwise, was it along the lines of "Guess what they accused Jerry of? Showering with a kid and bear hugging him! How crazy, right?" I'm just not convinced either is likely, and all any of us can do until facts come out is to speculate.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RLaub44, you've made several good observations. If Harmon decided to close the case, that would explain why Schreffler says that Gricar was the one, but that leaves open a number of possibilities--that Harmon initiated the closing of the case and used Gricar as an excuse and never talked to him; that Harmon and RG did talk but RG didn't have all the information because he didn't talk to Schreffler; that J Karen Arnold and RG were told different things by different people--or a combination of the above.

Schreffler said he talked with both; it has been indicated that JKA "extensive disagreements" with Gricar over the case. JKA has also said, publicly, that she had the case for a bit. Now, bluntly, I believe her.

The DA's Office is always sent police reports. It is inconceivable that they would write it up, and not send it. They may not forward it to DPW.

A few things to remember and consider.

1. Only what Victim 6 said is admissible, as corroborating evidence. In both reports, Victim 6 told the same story, so that increases his credibility. The opinion that Sandusky was grooming Victim 6, or the opinion that he wasn't, are not admissible.

2. Sandusky admitted to in front of witnesses, so no one, in 1998, was denying it.

3. RFG was not known to put a lot of trust in psychologists, either in his personal or professional life. It would be likely that neither report would carry too much weight with him, except where it could be used as evidence.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Why? If the objective was to cover it up and sweep it under the rug, why tell Paterno? Was the message, "You better keep your man in line?" That would mean they assumed there was truth to what the investigators didn't believe.

Otherwise, was it along the lines of "Guess what they accused Jerry of? Showering with a kid and bear hugging him! How crazy, right?" I'm just not convinced either is likely, and all any of us can do until facts come out is to speculate.

I agree, regarding 1998. Harmon said that he didn't give Schultz the full details, because he didn't have the full details. Schreffler brought in the State College police and called the DA's Office. He obviously wasn't keeping it "in house."

All of these decision, in 1998, were being made in the Courthouse, not on campus.

 

[StellarsJay]

From Chambers' report:
Mother had contact with a policeman's wife and so knew who to report to.
Would policemen's wives be very discrete? Or is this more to argue that lots of people must have thought JS was creepy?
And I'll give Seasock a point- of everyone who has written about "bear hug", he's the only one to get the kid's joke- it was a "bare" hug.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I agree, regarding 1998. Harmon said that he didn't give Schultz the full details, because he didn't have the full details. Schreffler brought in the State College police and called the DA's Office. He obviously wasn't keeping it "in house."

All of these decision, in 1998, were being made in the Courthouse, not on campus.

So Harmon didn't have "full details"? Then what "details" did he have? Even sketchy details would be enough to raise questions, it seems to me.

And there was no possiblity of a leak at the Courthouse? That must be unlike every other courthouse in the United States.

There was no possibility of gossip on campus that might have gotten back to someone?

I'm not buying that, sorry. JMOO :cow:

 

[ThoughtFox]

From Chambers' report:
Mother had contact with a policeman's wife and so knew who to report to.
Would policemen's wives be very discrete? Or is this more to argue that lots of people must have thought JS was creepy?

Exactly my point - we have to expect that there was also gossip going on. Other people saw things and I bet other people brought up Jerry with Paterno.

Heck, we don't even know exactly how many victims there are! For every one that has come forward, I would expect several to stay hush-hush.

I think it's obvious there is more to this than the "official story" of 1998.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So Harmon didn't have "full details"? Then what "details" did he have? Even sketchy details would be enough to raise questions, it seems to me.

That there was an investigation, but not the details. He could easily see that Sandusky was not arrested.

And there was no possiblity of a leak at the Courthouse? That must be unlike every other courthouse in the United States.

They have been known to be even more closed mouth than I am. A few people had a general idea, but not the details. Arnold had more, but most of it was Gricar

There was no possibility of gossip on campus that might have gotten back to someone?

There is a lot of gossip, but most of it isn't true. That's the problem with it.

 

[StellarsJay]

Another Ganim story:
Matt’s biological brother, Ron Heichel, remembers being a teenager in the 1990s and trying to reach Matt at the Sandusky home.

Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, answered the phone.

“And she said, ‘He’s not your brother anymore.’ This was before he was even adopted,” he said.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/jerry_sandusky_adopted_son_had.html