All things Joe Paterno

[Twindad]

Lauro did no investigation, that's why there's none to be found. He had a duty to perform one and, as any reasonable person or investigator would, locate all available information. He was aware of a report of child abuse and he was responsible to "investigate and make independent determinations on reports of suspected child abuse, regardless of another investigation conducted by another agency, the court or the police and regardless of whether or not the person making the report identified himself."

Lauro was physically in contact with Schreffler, it reasonable to assume the two of them talked about the case and any information Schreffler had was available to and seen by Lauro. Just because Lauro claims he was unaware of this information, it doesn't mean it's true.

The only thing which was going to prop up the investigation was the independent report by Chambers. Once a competing report was obtained, it was easy enough to muddy the waters and leave doubt in peoples minds as to the truth. Obfuscation.

What is Lauro hiding? I don't care. He appears to be just another yes man, a scapegoat to deflect blame.

He may have opened himself up to a charge of criminal negligence, but I'm not an attorney, or judge.

 

[Reader]

Fran Ganter To Retire After 46 Years With Penn State Football Program

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/022713aac.html

Feb. 27, 2013
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -

After nearly five decades as a Penn State Football student-athlete, coach and administrator, Fran Ganter has announced his retirement, effective February 28, 2013.

A running back for the Nittany Lions from 1967-70, Ganter helped Penn State compile a 29-3 record, including undefeated seasons capped by Orange Bowl wins in 1968 and '69, as a player. Winner of the squad's Red Worrell Award in 1970, Ganter graduated in 1971 and assumed duties as the freshman coach the next fall, beginning a tenure on the coaching staff that would last 33 years. Ganter was named offensive coordinator in 1984 and Assistant Head Coach in 2000, leaving the sidelines in 2004 to serve as Associate Athletic Director for Football Administration.

"I am very proud and thankful to have been a member of the Penn State Football family for the past 46 years," Ganter stated.

"I will always owe a debt of gratitude to Coach Bob Phillips for recruiting me to play at Penn State, and to Coach (Joe) Paterno for giving me the opportunity of a lifetime when he hired me onto his staff," Ganter said. "Outside of my Dad (Fran), who passed away when I was a young man and prior to being a father myself, Coach Paterno was the most influential and constant figure in my life. ...........more at link.......

 

[Reader]

Respectfully snipped. [ditto]

1a/Chamber's written report was only finished on 5/7, and the originally had Seasock scheduled for 5/8. I'd doubt that that Lauro would have been able to read Chamber's written report by that time.

1/bHer conclusions might not have been in or even if she had consulted with others.

2/The state has a degree of sovereign immunity, and I'd seriously doubt Lauro would or could be sued regarding foster parents.

[removed my quote]

3/For me, it is a less a question of lying and one of competence, or lack there of.

I will agree that DPW's role was hideously bad here, but I can't come up with a solid reason why Lauro would lie. He is saying, in effect, **I didn't really carry out my job duties. I didn't really investigate. I didn't talk with Chambers; I didn't see Seasock's report. I closed the case before I talked to Sandusky.** That is, in effect, what he has admitted to. What's he hiding, if anything?

1 a&b/ Lauro could not read 2 pages in a day? He had the Childline phone call 'on or by 5/7', Chambers' words so it could have been the same day she interviewed the child 5/4 [which the written report indicates she got the release from the mother the same day], and I will believe her when she said it 'included all details' of her written report. It doesn't take long to say: My colleagues and I conclude JS is a potential pedophile and is grooming the child that I interviewed.

2/ I'm talking about the agency being sued by parents finding out their children were placed by said agency with someone they knew to be a probable pedophile....not that it would automatically be successful but anyone can sue for any reason..and if that news got out a lot of careers could be ruined, including Lauro's and his bosses and perhaps some at CPS and the 2nd Mile, too...

3/ To me, you answered the question...he's hiding his own incompetence and lack of action to help the children he and his boss should have been trying to protect, and instead in effect, protected a now known pedophile who has been convicted of crimes against the children Lauro should have been working for. What could be worse than that about an investigator's career? Yes, he was incompetent and it's proven by his own statements that he did NO real investigation and did not put the information he did have to use...to me, that in itself is criminal though he will probably never face charges for it...however, just the open knowledge is damaging to his reputation and others...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

Lauro did no investigation, that's why there's none to be found. He had a duty to perform one and, as any reasonable person or investigator would, locate all available information. He was aware of a report of child abuse and he was responsible to "investigate and make independent determinations on reports of suspected child abuse, regardless of another investigation conducted by another agency, the court or the police and regardless of whether or not the person making the report identified himself."

Lauro was physically in contact with Schreffler, it reasonable to assume the two of them talked about the case and any information Schreffler had was available to and seen by Lauro. Just because Lauro claims he was unaware of this information, it doesn't mean it's true.

Well, Lauro said he never saw it and Schreffler did not disagree. The question would be, why didn't Lauro ask about what Schreffler or contact Chambers? Lauro seems to have expected everything to be handed to him.

The only thing which was going to prop up the investigation was the independent report by Chambers. Once a competing report was obtained, it was easy enough to muddy the waters and leave doubt in peoples minds as to the truth. Obfuscation.

Lauro claimed never have seen the Seasock report either. If there were conflicting expert reports, why not check the resumes of the experts? That is just prudence.

What is Lauro hiding? I don't care. He appears to be just another yes man, a scapegoat to deflect blame.

"Yes man," yes. Deflecting blame, no. The nicest thing anyone has said about him is that he failed to do his job, and failed badly; it was that his investigation was almost nonexistent. It was that he screwed up royally, but without any help from Penn State.

I do not defend Lauro's conduct, but what he is hiding or not hiding is important. There is no evidence that there was any conspiracy involving for Lauro to keep Sandusky under wraps. The thing is, with Lauro there, there is a good chance nobody needed to conspire with him to keep Sandusky under wraps.

 

[Reader]

Respectfully snipped.

Well, Lauro said he never saw it and Schreffler did not disagree. The question would be, why didn't Lauro ask about what Schreffler or contact Chambers? Lauro seems to have expected everything to be handed to him.

Lauro claimed never have seen the Seasock report either. If there were conflicting expert reports, why not check the resumes of the experts? That is just prudence.

"Yes man," yes. Deflecting blame, no. The nicest thing anyone has said about him is that he failed to do his job, and failed badly; it was that his investigation was almost nonexistent. It was that he screwed up royally, but without any help from Penn State.

I do not defend Lauro's conduct, but what he is hiding or not hiding is important. There is no evidence that there was any conspiracy involving for Lauro to keep Sandusky under wraps. The thing is, with Lauro there, there is a good chance nobody needed to conspire with him to keep Sandusky under wraps.

Not answering all of your post in Twindad's place, but just wanted to comment on the BBM:

Exactly! Maybe Lauro was chosen for the job BECAUSE he was known as a 'yes man' and incompetent? As a former state worker of many years I can testify there are some of those in every department who come in useful at times because they don't do their work and make ready excuses for that. As it worked out, he fit perfectly into the result desired..

 

[Twindad]

[/B]

Not answering all of your post in Twindad's place, but just wanted to comment on the BBM:

Exactly! Maybe Lauro was chosen for the job BECAUSE he was known as a 'yes man' and incompetent? As a former state worker of many years I can testify there are some of those in every department who come in useful at times because they don't do their work and make ready excuses for that. As it worked out, he fit perfectly into the result desired..

Just like Seasock. I'm unfamiliar with the qualifications of a person described as a Children & Youth Program Specialist Supervisor. Are they the people typically charged with investigating abuse allegations?

Schreffler didn't agree or disagree with Lauro. I believe he is sticking with "I stand by my report" and "no comment".

 

[J. J. in Phila]

[/B]

Not answering all of your post in Twindad's place, but just wanted to comment on the BBM:

Exactly! Maybe Lauro was chosen for the job BECAUSE he was known as a 'yes man' and incompetent? As a former state worker of many years I can testify there are some of those in every department who come in useful at times because they don't do their work and make ready excuses for that. As it worked out, he fit perfectly into the result desired..

First, you have to make the assumption that Lauro was like this across the board, and yes, there are workers like that. The was a joke at my office that "If the case was closed by C***, just reopening it."

I'm not sure that this assumption was correct. If we just looked the 1998 case, we could say exactly the same thing about Gricar. If you look at the rest of Gricar's record, he is not a "yes man," or weak willed, or stupid. You can't judge Lauro by just this case.

Second, let's assume that Lauro was like this in all his cases, basically that he was a hopeless incompetent. The decision to send him was made by DPW, not CYS. Nobody in Centre County knew he was hopeless incompetent.

It's the same with Seasock. Yes, if you had dealt with him for a time, you might know what he looks at, and doesn't look at. If he had a lot of publications, you might be able to go through those and guess. If you had a lot of his reports, you might be able guess. They guy has not published much in 1998, I think two papers, neither related. It's unlikely, in the extreme, that anyone at DPW would have access to all of Seasock's professional records.

None of these people have any ties to Penn State, or TSM, or Sandusky, that anyone can find.

The time factor is also a problem. Lauro was assigned within 36 hours of Victim 6's mother calling Schreffler. That is not a lot of time to organize something across agencies.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just like Seasock. I'm unfamiliar with the qualifications of a person described as a Children & Youth Program Specialist Supervisor. Are they the people typically charged with investigating abuse allegations?

Schreffler didn't agree or disagree with Lauro. I believe he is sticking with "I stand by my report" and "no comment".

I can't link to it, but the current flyer says:

"You will perform professional work of an administrative nature, i.e., planning, analyzing, developing, coordinating, and implementing local social services program administered by the Department of Public Welfare’s County Children, Youth, and Families, Mental Health, and Mental Retardation/Intellectual Disabilities offices. This includes: reviewing, analyzing and evaluating program objectives, policies, procedures, regulations and ongoing operations of organizational segments of a major program office; preparing reports which evaluate program effectiveness; and recommending changes in operational methods, procedures and policy. You will also provide consultative services to staff, providers and/or contractors concerning program planning, interpretation of overall objectives, and providing advice on problems related to the coordination, implementation and monitoring of public social services programs. You may supervise a staff of professional, paraprofessional, and/or clerical workers. "

Sorry, but it does not link.

Lauro was with DPW from 1976, and was a supervisor from 1992; he would retire after 30 years, which was standard. He has a BA in sociology in 1975 and a Masters in Government Administration in 1987, according to his Linkedin profile, neither from Penn State.

 

[BigCat]

For me, it is a less a question of lying and one of competence, or lack there of.

I will agree that DPW's role was hideously bad here, but I can't come up with a solid reason why Lauro would lie. He is saying, in effect, **I didn't really carry out my job duties. I didn't really investigate. I didn't talk with Chambers; I didn't see Seasock's report. I closed the case before I talked to Sandusky.** That is, in effect, what he has admitted to. What's he hiding, if anything?

Respectfully snipped

Based on what we know as of this moment, I have to agree with JJ's assessment.

Here are two problems I have with any conspiracy theories involving Lauro:

If the sole purpose of bringing in Seasock was to give Lauro an out, then why isn't he taking it?

Also, do we know for certain that DPW requested Seasock? Yes, they wanted an second eval, but do we know if someone at the agency hand-picked Seasock or not?

 

[JaimeSommers]

Fran Ganter To Retire After 46 Years With Penn State Football Program

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/022713aac.html

Trying so hard not to be cynical here.

 

[Rlaub44]

Fran Ganter To Retire After 46 Years With Penn State Football Program

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/022713aac.html

Feb. 27, 2013
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -

After nearly five decades as a Penn State Football student-athlete, coach and administrator, Fran Ganter has announced his retirement, effective February 28, 2013.

A running back for the Nittany Lions from 1967-70, Ganter helped Penn State compile a 29-3 record, including undefeated seasons capped by Orange Bowl wins in 1968 and '69, as a player. Winner of the squad's Red Worrell Award in 1970, Ganter graduated in 1971 and assumed duties as the freshman coach the next fall, beginning a tenure on the coaching staff that would last 33 years. Ganter was named offensive coordinator in 1984 and Assistant Head Coach in 2000, leaving the sidelines in 2004 to serve as Associate Athletic Director for Football Administration.

"I am very proud and thankful to have been a member of the Penn State Football family for the past 46 years," Ganter stated.

"I will always owe a debt of gratitude to Coach Bob Phillips for recruiting me to play at Penn State, and to Coach (Joe) Paterno for giving me the opportunity of a lifetime when he hired me onto his staff," Ganter said. "Outside of my Dad (Fran), who passed away when I was a young man and prior to being a father myself, Coach Paterno was the most influential and constant figure in my life. ...........more at link.......

Well, we have had conversations about the mysterious October 1998 meeting between the DA's office, both the University police officer and the State College police officer involved with the Sandusky investigation, and Ganter. My contention has long been that if that meeting was about Sandusky, PSU would not be likely to keep Ganter around.

Now we learn that he is retiring prior to the upcoming Schultz/Curley/Spanier trials. After 46 years, perhaps it is just his time. But to retire the next day? That seems sudden, and lends credence to the idea that his knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, and the University's role in handling it, is about to be revealed.

 

[Reader]

Well, we have had conversations about the mysterious October 1998 meeting between the DA's office, both the University police officer and the State College police officer involved with the Sandusky investigation, and Ganter. My contention has long been that if that meeting was about Sandusky, PSU would not be likely to keep Ganter around.

Now we learn that he is retiring prior to the upcoming Schultz/Curley/Spanier trials. After 46 years, perhaps it is just his time. But to retire the next day? That seems sudden, and lends credence to the idea that his knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, and the University's role in handling it, is about to be revealed.

Very curious to me also...the next day thing was surprising....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, we have had conversations about the mysterious October 1998 meeting between the DA's office, both the University police officer and the State College police officer involved with the Sandusky investigation, and Ganter. My contention has long been that if that meeting was about Sandusky, PSU would not be likely to keep Ganter around.

Now we learn that he is retiring prior to the upcoming Schultz/Curley/Spanier trials. After 46 years, perhaps it is just his time. But to retire the next day? That seems sudden, and lends credence to the idea that his knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, and the University's role in handling it, is about to be revealed.

Rlaub, good job. I would not have made that connection.

I was going to post earlier regarding Baldwin, with the possibility of her evidence being tossed. 1998 may be looming large in this case.

 

[Reader]

Respectfully snipped

Based on what we know as of this moment, I have to agree with JJ's assessment.

Here are two problems I have with any conspiracy theories involving Lauro:

If the sole purpose of bringing in Seasock was to give Lauro an out, then why isn't he taking it?

Also, do we know for certain that DPW requested Seasock? Yes, they wanted an second eval, but do we know if someone at the agency hand-picked Seasock or not?

Lauro at first tried to take an even better out...he denied he knew ANY evaluations had been made until a reporter showed him the LE report.

It's in Blehar's report:

In a March 22, 2012, Patriot News article29 stated: “Lauro was interviewed by the state grand jury that recently brought 52 child sex abuse charges involving 10 boys against Sandusky, but he said he did not even know psychologists had evaluated the boy then 11, until a reporter who acquired the 100-page report approached Lauro and showed him the reports.” Lauro’s testimony before the grand jury is not supported by the police report that reported his involvement in setting up the second evaluation.

 In the same article, Jerry Lauro said this about the two psychology reports:
reports: “Detective Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” and about Chambers’ report: “The conclusions she had drawn in her report were pretty damaging,” Lauro said. “I would have made a different decision. … It’s unbelievable, and it gets my blood pressure going when I think about it.”

Now we know from previous postings this is not true. Chambers made an oral report to Childline at least by 5/7 and Lauro himself gave Schreffler a copy of it that same date. Chambers also sent a written report to DPW which he had access to for full findings.

There's also this:

On or about May 8, 1998, police chief Tom Harmon informed Schultz of a potential conflict of interest between DPW and Second Mile (Freeh Report at 49). There is nothing in the Freeh Report indicating the SIC attempted to determine the conflicts and their potential impact on DPW’s investigation.

What was that conflict? Did DPW refer children to the SM? And why was the case being investigated by DPW at all if they also had a conflict in the Sandusky case, along with CPS. Why wasn't a special impartial investigator assigned?

Anywho, my question is, why was Lauro assigned the case at all? He was a supervisor and no mention is made by him or any report I've seen (Freeh, LE report, Blehar, other Paterno reports) that he had experience in handling child abuse cases, especially sexual abuse, which is a specialized type of case. Why did DPW not at least assign an experienced abuse investigator?

Same with Seasock...he was known to the department...he did counseling for CPS:

Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, 1998 as part of DPW’s investigation. Counselor John Seasock, who had a contract to provide counseling services to CYS, conducted the evaluation.

They knew he was not a qualified and licensed psychologist, and he even said he mainly worked with adults...Why not get a qualified psychologist who is experienced in working with children and abuse cases?

It's all very curious to me...not having 2 qualified people handling this very touchy case with conflicts going on with both state agencies.

 

[BigCat]

Lauro at first tried to take an even better out...he denied he knew ANY evaluations had been made until a reporter showed him the LE report.

I don't know. Personally, I don't see that as a better out. If he knew what was in the LE report before the reporter handed to him, then he should have have been claiming from the beginning that he dropped the case due to Seascock's report. Gricar's defenders have not hesitated to use that defense.

JMHO...It looks like Schreffler was attempting to bury the reports and Lauro was simply too lazy to uncover them.

Keep in mind that Tom Harmon attempted to bury his knowledge of both reports when he testified in front of the grand jury. Sportsbybrooks produced a nice pdf that exposes Harmon's lie:

http://media.sportsbybrooks.com/2012/07/thomasharmonpennstatepolicechieflied1998sanduskyinvestigation.pdf

Now we know from previous postings this is not true. Chambers made an oral report to Childline at least by 5/7 and Lauro himself gave Schreffler a copy of it that same date. Chambers also sent a written report to DPW which he had access to for full findings.

Lauro gives Schreffler a copy of the oral report. In return, Schreffler does not give Lauro a copy of the LE report. I don't see that as evidence of Lauro covering anything up.

Once again let me state that I'm not defending Lauro's investigation. He failed, clearly. I'm just not certain there was any deliberate action on his part to conceal Sandusky's crimes.

There's also this:

What was that conflict? Did DPW refer children to the SM? And why was the case being investigated by DPW at all if they also had a conflict in the Sandusky case, along with CPS. Why wasn't a special impartial investigator assigned?

Anywho, my question is, why was Lauro assigned the case at all? He was a supervisor and no mention is made by him or any report I've seen (Freeh, LE report, Blehar, other Paterno reports) that he had experience in handling child abuse cases, especially sexual abuse, which is a specialized type of case. Why did DPW not at least assign an experienced abuse investigator?

Same with Seasock...he was known to the department...he did counseling for CPS:

They knew he was not a qualified and licensed psychologist, and he even said he mainly worked with adults...Why not get a qualified psychologist who is experienced in working with children and abuse cases?

It's all very curious to me...not having 2 qualified people handling this very touchy case with conflicts going on with both state agencies.

I have to admit that I'm completely confused by all the inter-agency interagency protocol talk, so I can't add much to the discussion. All I'm looking for is the answer to one simple question: was the person who selected Seasock a local or an outsider? I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't know if this is related; it might be something else.

In June of 2011, somebody a Homeland Security was visiting a website on Gricar. I thought it might be tied to a foreign travel aspect for Gricar, i.e. they were checking to see if he left the country.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/07/14/2834622/watching-the-watchmen-watch-us.html

Who works for Homeland Security? Schreffler. Coincidence?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I have to admit that I'm completely confused by all the inter-agency interagency protocol talk, so I can't add much to the discussion. All I'm looking for is the answer to one simple question: was the person who selected Seasock a local or an outsider? I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.

I think I read that he was selected by CYS.

The problem is that unless somebody there really were familiar with Seasock's work, they wouldn't be able to tell what he'd conclude. They could "expert shop," as it were, but they'd have to know how he'd opine.

In my professional life, I do consulting and publish in my field. In my consulting I will be asked to write opinions. If you look at all of my professional writing, all of my opinions (and maybe my message board postings in the field), you might be able to guess how I'd come down on many issues.

Seasock, in 1998, published twice, and I don't think either was on adult child molesters. Unless he furnished them, just about any opinion would be confidential. His opinions were not admissible in court, so there would not be a court record. He didn't have a doctorate, so there only might have been a master's thesis, if that.

Seasock was not from the area, and only did contractual work for CYS or DPW, so they wouldn't be that familiar with his work. I can't see any way that anyone could "expert shop," and come up with Seasock.

[I will note that expert shopping does occur.]

 

[Twindad]

Well, we have had conversations about the mysterious October 1998 meeting between the DA's office, both the University police officer and the State College police officer involved with the Sandusky investigation, and Ganter. My contention has long been that if that meeting was about Sandusky, PSU would not be likely to keep Ganter around.

Now we learn that he is retiring prior to the upcoming Schultz/Curley/Spanier trials. After 46 years, perhaps it is just his time. But to retire the next day? That seems sudden, and lends credence to the idea that his knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, and the University's role in handling it, is about to be revealed.

Well Ganter was one of the coaches who saw Sandusky in the showers with boys. He was also the person who took the note to Paterno so the BOT could fire him over the phone. Joyner, his boss, was a member of the BOT at that time and is reportedly leaving when Erickson leaves.

 

[Twindad]

I think I read that he was selected by CYS.

The problem is that unless somebody there really were familiar with Seasock's work, they wouldn't be able to tell what he'd conclude. They could "expert shop," as it were, but they'd have to know how he'd opine.

In my professional life, I do consulting and publish in my field. In my consulting I will be asked to write opinions. If you look at all of my professional writing, all of my opinions (and maybe my message board postings in the field), you might be able to guess how I'd come down on many issues.

Seasock, in 1998, published twice, and I don't think either was on adult child molesters. Unless he furnished them, just about any opinion would be confidential. His opinions were not admissible in court, so there would not be a court record. He didn't have a doctorate, so there only might have been a master's thesis, if that.

Seasock was not from the area, and only did contractual work for CYS or DPW, so they wouldn't be that familiar with his work. I can't see any way that anyone could "expert shop," and come up with Seasock.

[I will note that expert shopping does occur.]

From post #340 by J.J. in Phila "Well, DPW brought in Seasock as their expert, who said there was none."

I agree with you.

Seasock could have been prepared beforehand. Maybe someone told him something like this is probably a false report, Jerry Sandusky is a saint and would never do anything like that. He started TSM for goodness sake. Stuff like this happens all the time between coaches and kids.

Seasock was familiar with TSM through his contract work.
From his report he stated JS engaged in behavior that can be considered indicative of most people termed as coach. It appears JS engaged in a routine of behavior countess times and these can typically be defined as normal.

I'm not sure if he would know what is normal between a coach and athlete, regardless JS was a coach to a college football team and this child was not on that team.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From post #340 by J.J. in Phila "Well, DPW brought in Seasock as their expert, who said there was none."

I agree with you.

Seasock could have been prepared beforehand. Maybe someone told him something like this is probably a false report, Jerry Sandusky is a saint and would never do anything like that. He started TSM for goodness sake. Stuff like this happens all the time between coaches and kids.

Well, for a professional, that would not make any difference. A lot of times, I might get a client who wants a certain opinion; they often will not get what the want.

Seasock was familiar with TSM through his contract work.
From his report he stated JS engaged in behavior that can be considered indicative of most people termed as coach. It appears JS engaged in a routine of behavior countess times and these can typically be defined as normal.

I'm not sure if he would know what is normal between a coach and athlete, regardless JS was a coach to a college football team and this child was not on that team.

Seasock did do some consulting for Centre County CYS. It would be possible that he knew of TSM. Seasock's credentials in 1998 were, bluntly, not as good as Chambers in 1998, in terms of education and experience. He had not reviewed the Chambers Report when questioned by Schreffler.