Penn State Sandusky-Report of the Special Investigative Counsel

[BigCat]

First, they didn't know about the 1998 incident, until the police reported it. There is no evidence that they tried to influence RFG regarding it. Anything that goes back to 1998, and the answer is, **It was reported and investigated to the DA and DPW. They made the decisions.**

**Respectfully shortened**

I meant to adress this part earlier but I forgot. Pages 42 and 43 of the report address how the 98 incident was reported. Victim 6's mother reported Sandusky to Schreffler around 11am on May 4th. Schreffler interviewed the boy and the psychologist who informed the mother to report the incident and then he contacted CYS. That afternoon he called Karen Arnold directly because he did not want to "have to worry about Old Main sticking their nose in the investigation." (a direct quote of Schreffler)

It would have been impossible to cover up the incident with all those people aware of the allegation and, yet, Schreffler still felt the need to go directly to the prosecutor because he feared interference.

So my point is, if the could have covered up 98, they would have.

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I meant to adress this part earlier but I forgot. Pages 42 and 43 of the report address how the 98 incident was reported. Victim 6's mother reported Sandusky to Schreffler around 11am on May 4th. Schreffler interviewed the boy and the psychologist who informed the mother to report the incident and then he contacted CYS. That afternoon he called Karen Arnold directly because he did not want to "have to worry about Old Main sticking their nose in the investigation." (a direct quote of Schreffler)

It would have been impossible to cover up the incident with all those people aware of the allegation and, yet, Schreffler still felt the need to go directly to the prosecutor because he feared interference.

So my point is, if the could have covered up 98, they would have.

It would make perfect (though disgusting) sense to suppress the 1998 incident of Victim 6. Sandusky was still with the program. It would have been 20 times more damaging than 2001 (Victim 2).

The thing is, there is no evidence they ever tried to do that. Nobody said, **I talked to Gricar,** or **Ray will kill this for us,** from the Freeh report.

Even suppressing 2001 would make somewhat more sense, if they were protecting a hypothetical 1998 cover up.

 

[JBean]

you are here in this new forum:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=495"]Jerry Sandusky-Cover Up at Penn State - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


Currently on this thread:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178528"]Penn State Sandusky-Report of the Special Investigative Counsel - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


Please make a note of it.

 

[StellarsJay]

Big Cat said "It would have been impossible to cover up the incident with all those people aware of the allegation and, yet, Schreffler still felt the need to go directly to the prosecutor because he feared interference.

So my point is, if the could have covered up 98, they would have."

And JJ replied:

It would make perfect (though disgusting) sense to suppress the 1998 incident of Victim 6. Sandusky was still with the program. It would have been 20 times more damaging than 2001 (Victim 2).

The thing is, there is no evidence they ever tried to do that. Nobody said, **I talked to Gricar,** or **Ray will kill this for us,** from the Freeh report.

Even suppressing 2001 would make somewhat more sense, if they were protecting a hypothetical 1998 cover up.

But it was covered up, at the College Police level. Freeh (p35) says that in 1998 Thomas Harmon (Sandusky’s old neighbour) is Director of University Police reporting to the Assistant Vice President of Police and Public Safety; in April 1998 the AVP position was eliminated, leaving Harmon top dog.
On May 3, Sandusky molests Victim 6 in the shower and the child's mother calls police- unfortunately it is the University police under Harmon, who now is reporting straight to Schultz. (Exhibits 2C, 2D) Despite promising work by Schreffler the Chambers psychological report is left out, the investigation is dropped, and the report is (mis)filed as an administrative file. The Freeh report comments that more experienced police might have gotten more out of Jerry.
Freeh P 20: Harmon emails Scultz- "We're going to hold off making any crime log entry. At this point in time I can justify that decision because of the lack of clear evidence of a crime."
Harmon used to be Jerry's neighbour, but I doubt if he would have scr*d this investigation so thoroughly without believing that was the way it was wanted.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Big



But it was covered up, at the College Police level. Freeh (p35) says that in 1998 Thomas Harmon (Sandusky’s old neighbour) is Director of University Police reporting to the Assistant Vice President of Police and Public Safety; in April 1998 the AVP position was eliminated, leaving Harmon top dog.
On May 3, Sandusky molests Victim 6 in the shower and the child's mother calls police- unfortunately it is the University police under Harmon, who now is reporting straight to Schultz. (Exhibits 2C, 2D) Despite promising work by Schreffler the Chambers psychological report is left out, the investigation is dropped, and the report is (mis)filed as an adminsitrative file. The Freeh report comments that more experienced police might have gotten more out of Jerry.

But it wasn't covered up at the DA's Office level. Chambers filed a report with the DPW hotline. Schreffler filed everything with the DA's Office. The Chambers' Report was sent to the DA's Office, according to Schreffler's report. It was actually sent there before Seasock became involved.

Victim 6 is the more devastating case to Penn State, especially the football program, because, in 1998, Sandusky is actually working there. So, why didn't the Big Four try to stop LE in 1998, and why do they seem more concerned about the less damaging 2001 incident?

 

[StellarsJay]

The Chambers' Report was sent to the DA's Office, according to Schreffler's report. It was actually sent there before Seasock became involved.

Thanks, JJ, I missed that. So who should have passed it on to Lauro?

 

[JodyMT]

This whole case makes me sick to my stomach. From that child rapist Sandusky, to everyone who helped cover up what he was doing, all for the sake of saving their reputations and bringing in alumni donations and such.

Every last one of them should burn.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The Chambers' Report was sent to the DA's Office, according to Schreffler's report. It was actually sent there before Seasock became involved.

Thanks, JJ, I missed that. So who should have passed it on to Lauro?

I'm not sure, but I would think that the DA's Office should have made sure that it was done. Follow up.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Slightly embarrassing, but not enough of a scandal to endanger anything, if reported. It only becomes a problem if it is covered up.



I think we are missing something. It is virtual insanity to risk that much over some very minor embarrassment.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that there has to be more to the 2001 coverup than avoiding minor embarrassment.

Yes, there is: if the 2001 incident had been made public, undoubtedly the 1998 incident would have come to light at that time as well, and there would have been major embarrassment over the fact that they all knew about 1998 but continued to let Sandusky have access to PSU facilities, with kids, instead of erring on the side of caution.

Even though no charges were filed, at the very least--as we have seen--there is a gigantic ICK factor associated with a grown middle-aged man showering with a young boy not his son or other very close relative. They understandably would have feared major fallout for their inaction after 1998.

If I am not understanding you correctly, then never mind. :seeya:

 

[otto]

It looks like Paterno knew as early as 1998, but participated in discussions regarding notification of proper authorities and chose to remain silent. A couple of years later, there was another related incident. Again, it was decided that silence would protect the reputation of the football team and thus the academic institution.

I guess they were all dirty ... and more, no doubt. I think the school should withdraw from the football association for at least a year while they sort this out. If Sandusky was abusing boys on the teams, how deep does it go. We all know that victims of abuse often become the perps.

 

[Tipstaff]

Penn State raises tuition 2.4% and former Penn Stater and Pittsburgh Steeler questions the integrity of the Freeh Report. Per the Post Gazette.

Matt Freed/Post-Gazette

Franco Harris: "A lot of people are taking it as gospel, that this is the truth. I don't think there's absolute truth to the Freeh Report. There's no way it can be unless you have [former president Graham Spanier, Curley and Schultz] as part of that."


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...g-to-listen-to-findings-644673/#ixzz20b7bDwB7

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that there has to be more to the 2001 coverup than avoiding minor embarrassment.

I'm saying it would make more sense to move heaven and earth to cover up 1998 than 2001. Yet, though the Big Four knew about 1998, there is no evidence they tried. The decisions there were made off campus.

Yes, there is: if the 2001 incident had been made public, undoubtedly the 1998 incident would have come to light at that time as well, and there would have been major embarrassment over the fact that they all knew about 1998 but continued to let Sandusky have access to PSU facilities, with kids, instead of erring on the side of caution.

Well, in 2001, they could have said, **1998 was handled by law enforcement. They didn't find anything.** They could say that, if they reported Victim 2 and charges were filed.

Even though no charges were filed, at the very least--as we have seen--there is a gigantic ICK factor associated with a grown middle-aged man showering with a young boy not his son or other very close relative. They understandably would have feared major fallout for their inaction after 1998.

Well, that's just it. The DA and DPW would be hit with that. It would be a major scandal with them, but not with PSU.

I think there could be some other reason for covering up 2001. But what?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It looks like Paterno knew as early as 1998, but participated in discussions regarding notification of proper authorities and chose to remain silent. A couple of years later, there was another related incident. Again, it was decided that silence would protect the reputation of the football team and thus the academic institution.

In 1998, by the time any of the Big Four knew about it, it was reported. Victim 6 decisions were made off campus.

 

[Elley Mae]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2...t_is_high_on_Penn_State_trustees__agenda.html

"I want the board to go away. It's that simple," she said as she took a seat among a dozen members of the public at a meeting held amid the release of the damning Freeh report on how child sex-abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky were mishandled and covered up. "I feel the board has handled this situation badly in many ways."

 

[BigCat]

I'm saying it would make more sense to move heaven and earth to cover up 1998 than 2001. Yet, though the Big Four knew about 1998, there is no evidence they tried. The decisions there were made off campus.

Well, in 2001, they could have said, **1998 was handled by law enforcement. They didn't find anything.** They could say that, if they reported Victim 2 and charges were filed.

Well, that's just it. The DA and DPW would be hit with that. It would be a major scandal with them, but not with PSU.

I think there could be some other reason for covering up 2001. But what?

You really aren't a football fan.

There's no big mystery to me. They didn't want to damage the football program, not one tiny bit. If children suffered, that's the price that must be paid.

It was obvious that Freeh is not a football fan either (he called Sandusky one of Paterno's "chief defense coaches", a very awkward phrasing) but he gets it.

Louis Freeh, asked why Penn State officials concealed their knowledge about Sandusky incidents, replied, "The motivation to avoid the consequences of bad publicity."

Asked in a follow-up question if it was to protect the football program, Freeh said, "I think that's an inference that you can draw. But I think bad publicity affects a panorama of different events, including the brand of Penn State, including the university, including the reputation of coaches, including the ability to do fundraising. It's got huge implications."

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/562402/Freeh-report-updates.html

The Penn State 4 did not need to remind RFG of this in 98. He already knew it and made the calculation it was not worth it to press charges. I'm sure he didn't care about Penn State football, but he knew those "crazy football fans" would put him through hell for harming the football program. Yes, RFG. Not, Sandsusky. That's the way a fanatic thinks.

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You really aren't a football fan.

There's no big mystery to me. They didn't want to damage the football program, not one tiny bit. If children suffered, that's the price that must be paid.

I'm definitely not a football fan. However, 2001 would damage the program far less than 1998. There is no suggestion that the
Big Four interfered in 1998.

The Penn State 4 did not need to remind RFG of this in 98. He already knew it and made the calculation it was not worth it to press charges. I'm sure he didn't care about Penn State football, but he knew those "crazy football fans" would put him through hell for harming the football program. Yes, RFG. Not, Sandsusky. That's the way a fanatic thinks.

You are basically saying that he was scared. But he wasn't in other cases.

 

[BigCat]

I'm definitely not a football fan. However, 2001 would damage the program far less than 1998. There is no suggestion that the
Big Four interfered in 1998.

You are basically saying that he was scared. But he wasn't in other cases.

You just said 98 would damage Penn State far worse than 2001. No case he did prosecute compares to the potential damage to the program caused by an assistant coach molesting a boy in the football shower.

Yes, it's possible that he was scared. I'm an ex-marine. I often get scared. There's no shame in admitting that. We're human...all too human.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You just said 98 would damage Penn State far worse than 2001. No case he did prosecute compares to the potential damage to the program caused by an assistant coach molesting a boy in the football shower.

Phillips was close, and that was much more closely tied to Paterno. It was also a weaker case; RFG lost it.

Yes, it's possible that he was scared. I'm an ex-marine. I often get scared. There's no shame in admitting that. We're human...all too human.

It is possible, and not the worst possibility.

The problem I have is that RFG, if he was scared, could have prosecuted it after Sandusky retired. RFG probably didn't know that Paterno had already said that Sandusky would never be the coach, but within a year, he knew Sandusky wouldn't be part of the program.

 

[costalpilot]

Legal experts say Paterno could have faced charges

http://www.centurylink.net/news/rea...ass&action=5&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_USNWU00L5_UNEWS

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — If he were alive today, Joe Paterno — the coach who stood for so long for character and integrity both on and off the football field — could be looking at charges such as child endangerment, perjury and conspiracy.

Legal experts said emails and other evidence in the Penn State investigative report released Thursday suggest that Paterno may have misled a grand jury when asked when he first heard about Jerry Sandusky's misconduct, and show that Paterno and other university officials put boys in danger with their failure to report sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky more than a decade ago.

Duquesne University law professor Wes Oliver said the report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh reads like a prosecution case for a child endangerment charge against Paterno, then-President Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and now-retired vice president Gary Schultz. Oliver noted that a former top official in the Philadelphia Archdiocese was convicted of that charge in June for allowing a suspected pedophile priest to be around children.

"If you look at what happened here, it's very clear that they were aware that they had a pedophile on their campus," Oliver said.

Will Spade, a former Philadelphia prosecutor who worked on a grand jury investigation of priests about a decade ago, agreed: "Spanier, Paterno, Schultz and Curley are arguably responsible for endangering all of those kids that were abused later."

More at link.....

the Paternos ought to pay more attention to reports like this and less to their lawyers, who have sent them out to attack Freeh's findings centered about the complaint that his report would not be admissable in court. Jay Paterno spent all day on espn making that argument, which espn was only too glad to air but the arguments were clearly narrow, legalistc arguments which ignored the weight of the evidence which Freeh presented and which everyone understood clearly. The result is that the Paterno's seem to be giving some context to how misunderstood Joepa was all those years, and are demonstrating how he could have responded so tragically and improperly to the greatest crisis of his life. If the Paternos are more concerned with his reputation than the truth, well isn't that exactly what Freeh accused Joepa of? Yes, it was.

They dont get it. and he didnt either.

 

[LNL]

Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out
By JO BECKER
Published: July 14, 2012

In January 2011, Joe Paterno learned prosecutors were investigating his longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexually assaulting young boys. Soon, Mr. Paterno had testified before a grand jury, and the rough outlines of what would become a giant scandal had been published in a local newspaper.

That same month, Mr. Paterno, the football coach at Penn State, began negotiating with his superiors to amend his contract, with the timing something of a surprise because the contract was not set to expire until the end of 2012, according to university documents and people with knowledge of the discussions. By August, Mr. Paterno and the university’s president, both of whom were by then embroiled in the Sandusky investigation, had reached an agreement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/s...ract-amid-jerry-sandusky-inquiry.html?_r=1&hp

All I can say is that the BOT was and is pathetic. Talk about spineless.