All things Joe Paterno

[Reader]

I found it curious there was no mention of the report by Alycia Chambers where she said Sandusky exhibited grooming behavior.

Clemente mentioned the Chambers report and also Seasock's, which he blasted....he also said that going by Seasock's report was the reason no charges were filed.

p.15 and 16

One psychologist, trained in the art of deciphering offender behavior, Alycia Chambers,
evaluated the boy, saw and recognized all the red flags presented by Sandusky’s behavior, but
her report apparently did not receive the attention it deserved. Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) referred the case to counselor John Seasock,20 who, without reading Chamber’s
report, evaluated the boy for one hour and then wrote a report concluding nothing improper took
place.21 That is why no one at Penn State did anything to sanction Sandusky.* The University
Police Department, the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), and the District Attorney all
closed their cases based in large part on Seasock’s report.22

*It may be why they did nothing using this as an excuse, but I disagree that they could not do anything...as stated in the post about Clemente's report, they had every right to discuss and sanction Sandusky because he was investigated about an incident with a child that took place on the campus.

----------------
p.61

Though Seasock’s report may have been filled with misconceptions,
mischaracterizations, and erroneous conclusions, nevertheless, it was the report that the DPW,
UPD, and the DA based their decision on to close the 1998 investigation.

-----------------
p.72

For example, although the report of counselor Seasock regarding the 1998 Sandusky
incident is methodical and thorough, it is filled with inaccurate, rigid, pigeonholed assumptions
about the behavior of “pedophiles.” Though I understand his desire to go into a potential victim
interview unbiased by the reports and conclusions of others, it is irresponsible to make any final
conclusions in such a vacuum. He had a responsibility to gather information from all available
sources and assess it before reaching his final conclusions in the case. He should have read the
transcripts of the previous interviews of the alleged victim, the Chambers report, and other police
reports to determine whether the child had been consistent in the allegations and whether
additional information had been elicited during those interviews. His inept handling of the case
and his erroneous conclusions about “pedophiles” in general, and Sandusky in particular, are a
major reason why Sandusky was not discovered as a preferential child sex offender in 1998.

 

[Reader]

From the Spaulding report, this was interesting and brings up the question again of just what Curley told Raykovitz and why it was not reported by him. I thought he said he was only told it was 'horsing around' but Spaulding seems to think he had more information about the incident and should have identified the child and reported the incident.

“nforming The Second Mile is clearly not keeping the information in-house or
concealing information. The Second Mile was an independent child care
agency/charity founded by Sandusky but run by a board and a CEO. It is also the
most likely place where Sandusky obtained access to the child in question.
Accordingly, The Second Mile is precisely the organization that was in the best
position to identify that child. And, because its CEO, Jack Raykovitz, was a
licensed psychologist, he was a mandated reporter of any sexual victimization
allegations regarding any children within his institutional care.”93

---------------
Thornburgh's report had many of the same points as Clemente's but he twice emphasized this about Curley's email after talking to Paterno:

"The actual language in Exhibit 5G also does not support the SIC’s contention that Mr.
Paterno was part of any “decision” not to report the incident to a law enforcement or child
protection authority. Exhibit 5G reads, “After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe
yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed . . . .”130 Mr. Curley uses the singular when
discussing his proposed change in direction. If, as the SIC contends, Mr. Curley was so heavily
influenced by Mr. Paterno then it would seem more likely that he would use the plural to
demonstrate the fact that Mr. Paterno supported his proposal."

This singular/plural theory is a stretch to me which separates the message into 2 sections and tries to drop the first section. This totally ignores the beginning which clearly says Curley changed his mind about what to do "after...talking it over with Joe". That says to me that Paterno did influence him in his feeling 'uncomfortable' and wanting to change the plan. I think he used the singular "I' because he was the one who was taking the action they agreed on...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

Clemente mentioned the Chambers report and also Seasock's, which he blasted....he also said that going by Seasock's report was the reason no charges were filed.

p.15 and 16



Though Seasock’s report may have been filled with misconceptions,
mischaracterizations, and erroneous conclusions, nevertheless, it was the report that the DPW,
UPD, and the DA based their decision on to close the 1998 investigation.

-----------------
p.72

That is one of the conclusion in the Freeh Report, that the case was closed because of the Seasock Report, that is in dispute. It was claimed based on someone in another agency who was not privy to the decision.

As noted, it neither Report's conclusion were admissible. If Gricar saw both reports, and even used it internally to make up his own mind, it would be a colossal collapse of judgment, if not absolute stupidity, to give more weight to the Seasock Report, simply based on the difference in education, licensing, and experience between Seasock and Chambers.

I am one of the people who questions that this is the reason.

That is directed at the reports, not at you Reader.

 

[Reader]

Respectfully snipped.



That is one of the conclusion in the Freeh Report, that the case was closed because of the Seasock Report, that is in dispute. It was claimed based on someone in another agency who was not privy to the decision.

As noted, it neither Report's conclusion were admissible. If Gricar saw both reports, and even used it internally to make up his own mind, it would be a colossal collapse of judgment, if not absolute stupidity, to give more weight to the Seasock Report, simply based on the difference in education, licensing, and experience between Seasock and Chambers.

I am one of the people who questions that this is the reason.

That is directed at the reports, not at you Reader.

I question it too, and again it seems somebody did not check the PA law to see if their conclusion was even possible...and I copied all of that to show how he really blasted Seasock...I agree his report was deficient but this seems a little overboard....there were others who did not do a very good job investigating this case also, Lauro, for one....

 

[BigCat]

From the Spaulding report, this was interesting and brings up the question again of just what Curley told Raykovitz and why it was not reported by him. I thought he said he was only told it was 'horsing around' but Spaulding seems to think he had more information about the incident and should have identified the child and reported the incident.

“nforming The Second Mile is clearly not keeping the information in-house or
concealing information. The Second Mile was an independent child care
agency/charity founded by Sandusky but run by a board and a CEO. It is also the
most likely place where Sandusky obtained access to the child in question.
Accordingly, The Second Mile is precisely the organization that was in the best
position to identify that child. And, because its CEO, Jack Raykovitz, was a
licensed psychologist, he was a mandated reporter of any sexual victimization
allegations regarding any children within his institutional care.”93

Respectfully snipped

Curley is emphatic in his grand jury testimony that he was never told that McQueary witnessed any actions of a sexual nature, which is not consistent with the testimonies of Paterno and Schultz. I don't see how Raykovitz could be be held responsible for his inaction when he was unaware of the seriousness of the allegation.

However, don't think for a minute that I believe Raykovitz is completely innocence in this whole ordeal. I'm only defending him on this one particular point. A crime was witnessed on the property of the Penn State athletic department by a Penn State employee. It is not an adequate response for the university's athletic director simply to notify the alleged perpetrator's employer (and I'm not even sure if that's the correct term for Raykovitz). Curley should have contacted law enforcement or, at least, child protective services, IMO.

 

[Twindad]

Here is another critique of the Freeh report by a PSU grad. While it's purpose is to exonerate JP, it brings up some interesting points about the CYS and DPW involvement: http://emf.intherough.net/Report_1_Child Protection_1.23.2013.pdf

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Though I am not suggesting it, someone could probably start threads on how badly both the DA's Office and DPW handled 1998.

I question it too, and again it seems somebody did not check the PA law to see if their conclusion was even possible...and I copied all of that to show how he really blasted Seasock...I agree his report was deficient but this seems a little overboard....there were others who did not do a very good job investigating this case also, Lauro, for one....

Well, the question is if the Seasock Report could have influenced Gricar's decision. Could he have looked at it and determined that Sandusky was not "really" guilty or "really" a threat to others, as opposed to if there is enough evidence to charge. That, in itself, is not a problem.

If Gricar did that, the question is why didn't he look at Seasock's credentials, simply asking for his resume. There is no suggestion Seasock "padded" his credentials or misrepresented himself. However, in 1998, he was clearly not as qualified as Dr. Chambers, not even close.

The Chambers Report was mentioned in the police report and was listed as being attached in that report. So Gricar either ignored the Chambers Report, or didn't read the police report, and didn't know about it.

Then there is Lauro. Dr. Chambers reported it, as required by law. It was initially handled by CYS. Lauro either never checked with the reporting person, or never was told the origin of the report. He has said he never saw it, and he would not have closed the investigation if he did. DPW can use both reports' conclusions in making a determination.

As the Univ Police had the Chambers Report, why wasn't this shared with Lauro? Normally, it would be the DA's Office who would coordinate this. That appears not to have happened, and the person who normally did it was removed, very early on.

In terms of the 1998 incident that paints a very disturbing picture. Both DPW and the DA's Office certainly had greater access that Paterno did to this information.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And Jay is writing a book about Joe:

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/14/3502833/son-writing-book-about-joe-paterno.html

 

[nittanylioness234]

"That is one of the conclusion in the Freeh Report, that the case was closed because of the Seasock Report, that is in dispute. It was claimed based on someone in another agency who was not privy to the decision.

As noted, it neither Report's conclusion were admissible. If Gricar saw both reports, and even used it internally to make up his own mind, it would be a colossal collapse of judgment, if not absolute stupidity, to give more weight to the Seasock Report, simply based on the difference in education, licensing, and experience between Seasock and Chambers.

I am one of the people who questions that this is the reason."


JJ, what do you think might be the reason?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ, what do you think might be the reason?

It wasn't not enough evidence. Two people that were involved in the case have commented, and neither signed on to the "not enough evidence" claim. It was laughable.

I've seen no evidence of bribery, and I did look. Gricar had a lower than expected amount money in his accounts, based on his salary and known expenses.

So what we have is:

1. The case was sent to Arnold (5/4/98). Say what you want about her, but these cases were her specialty; she was the go to person in the office on these for the next 7 years. Gricar removed her, completely (sometime on or after 5/8/98). The police report indicated that she had “extensive disagreements” over the police investigation. It is hugely unlikely that she was arguing that Gricar should go softer on Sandusky.

2. Sloane, Gricar's closest friend in the office, was brought in on the case (date unknown).

3. For some reason, the Chambers Report, which couldn't be completely used for prosecuting, was never sent to Lauro, according to Lauro. The Chambers Report was picked up by Schreffler on 4/8/98. Normally, Arnold would coordinate with CYS/DPW, but she was removed. [Note: She did not talk to Freeh.]

4. Gricar made the decision not to prosecute prior to any interview with Sandusky. The time frame was less than 30 days (6/1/98).

5. After the case was close there was a meeting between Gricar, Sloane, Schreffler, Ralston and Ganter (10/13/98). It was at the "football building" and involved an investigation. Except for Ganter, everyone was involved in the May investigation. Lauro was not present, nor was Arnold (who was removed earlier).

Sloane was the source, but he can't recall what it was about; at least that is what he told Ganim.

Note that Sloane is Gricar's closest friend. Arnold is who had a great deal of respect of Gricar, though there was never any suggestion of a close friendship.

Now that is just 1998. In the next part, I'll jump to 2012.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

2012.

Freeh Report released (7/12). There is clear evidence that Curley and Schultz knew about 1998 at the time, with Spanier cced.

Sloane is arrested for drug charges (10/2). The incident is more than a year old and the charges seen to be very severe for the alleged crime.

On 11/1, conspiracy charges (and others) are filed against Spanier Schultz, and Curley. The first six pages grand jury presentment deal with 1998.

Possibly, Gricar wanted Sandusky to get treatment for his problem. 1998 was not a rape case, and Sandusky was very popular. Gricar could have thought it would have difficult to get a conviction against "the Great Sandusky" and possibly wanted it handled in house, as it were, so that Sandusky could get help with his problem. Similar charges were resolved with ARD in other cases.

It might have been an attempt to prevent a scandal that could damage the biggest employer in the county, but it would also solve the problem. Gricar was not someone who would put too much stock in psychologists' reports, especially since their conclusions were not admissible.

If it worked, it could have been seen as a win/win situation. Penn State avoids a scandal, Gricar isn't hounded by those "crazy football fans" (especially those that are registered voters), and, most importantly, Sandusky would not have been a threat. The key is, if it worked.

That is one theory. If correct, it would possibly be a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Not a bad guy, but someone who couldn't understand the danger; I would thought it was treatable in 1998.

I was mocked on another site for saying that I wouldn't care if Sandusky served a day in jail, as long as he couldn't molest children; that might have been Gricar's thinking. Now, does proof exist?

 

[Rlaub44]

Possibly, Gricar wanted Sandusky to get treatment for his problem.

If it worked, it could have been seen as a win/win situation. Penn State avoids a scandal, Gricar isn't hounded by those "crazy football fans" (especially those that are registered voters), and, most importantly, Sandusky would not have been a threat. The key is, if it worked.

This is an interesting theory, and the parts I bolded are especially fascinating, because they sound almost exactly like the thinking behind the emails between Spanier, Curley and Schultz in 2001.

Now, would they have been having those same "what ifs" if that plan had been attempted in 98 by the DA with their knowledge? Spanier couldn't have noted "the only downside for us is if the message isn't heard" had he known that the message wasn't heard 3 years prior.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This is an interesting theory, and the parts I bolded are especially fascinating, because they sound almost exactly like the thinking behind the emails between Spanier, Curley and Schultz in 2001.

Now, would they have been having those same "what ifs" if that plan had been attempted in 98 by the DA with their knowledge? Spanier couldn't have noted "the only downside for us is if the message isn't heard" had he known that the message wasn't heard 3 years prior.

There are several important differences:

A. 1998 was not a rape case.

B. If this scenario happened, the DA may have had the authority to reach that decision, at least in theory. The Three Stooges did not. There was no suggestion of involving LE in 2001

C. In 2001, there was no effort to get Sandusky any help or to keep him from being a threat.

 

[Rlaub44]

There are several important differences:

A. 1998 was not a rape case.

B. If this scenario happened, the DA may have had the authority to reach that decision, at least in theory. The Three Stooges did not. There was no suggestion of involving LE in 2001

C. In 2001, there was no effort to get Sandusky any help or to keep him from being a threat.

A. According to the jury, neither was 2001. :blushing:

B. Absolutely true, which is why I indicated earlier it was clearly wrong. It may or may not have been well-intentioned, but it was clearly not their call to make. You are correct that there was no suggestion of involving LE in 2001; but there was a plan in place to report to DPW. That dichotomy suggests that Curley, Schultz and Spanier viewed the actions reported by McQueary as inappropriate boundary issues, but apparently not as a criminal act or their original plan before Curley got cold feet should have included reporting to LE.

C. We don't know that there was any effort to get Sandusky help in 1998 either. If that was a reason for the October meeting with Ganter, somebody (Gricar, Ganter, Harmon?) should have alerted PSU administration so that if there were any future incidents, the next step could have been clearly laid out. I don't think that happened, because I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that the clandestine October meeting was an effort to try and obtain treatment for Sandusky.

What could explain the 4 month gap between the closing of the case and the purported meeting to arrange "treatment" for his problem?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A. According to the jury, neither was 2001. :blushing:

But Sandusky was charged with it. There was the allegation that was not there, with either victim, in 1998. I don't want to victimize what Victim 6 and B. K. went through, but 2001 was much more serious.

B. Absolutely true, which is why I indicated earlier it was clearly wrong. It may or may not have been well-intentioned, but it was clearly not their call to make. You are correct that there was no suggestion of involving LE in 2001; but there was a plan in place to report to DPW. That dichotomy suggests that Curley, Schultz and Spanier viewed the actions reported by McQueary as inappropriate boundary issues, but apparently not as a criminal act or their original plan before Curley got cold feet should have included reporting to LE.

How would they know that, or even reach that conclusion. None of these guys have academic training in this. I've followed this case incessantly, obviously, since November 2011, and I couldn't tell what constitutes a boundary issue.

C. We don't know that there was any effort to get Sandusky help in 1998 either. If that was a reason for the October meeting with Ganter, somebody (Gricar, Ganter, Harmon?) should have alerted PSU administration so that if there were any future incidents, the next step could have been clearly laid out. I don't think that happened, because I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that the clandestine October meeting was an effort to try and obtain treatment for Sandusky.

Well, we don't know the subject, other that it was an "investigation." That in itself is interesting, because Gricar was not an investigating DA.

What could explain the 4 month gap between the closing of the case and the purported meeting to arrange "treatment" for his problem?

Well, if it was Sandusky, there could have been some type of investigation. That 10/13/98 meeting might be the nexus explaining a lot of things, including what happened to Ray Gricar.

 

[Rlaub44]

But Sandusky was charged with it. There was the allegation that was not there, with either victim, in 1998. I don't want to victimize what Victim 6 and B. K. went through, but 2001 was much more serious.

Agreed.

How would they know that, or even reach that conclusion. None of these guys have academic training in this. I've followed this case incessantly, obviously, since November 2011, and I couldn't tell what constitutes a boundary issue.

Arguably, Spanier had the academic training, although it shouldn't have been their call to make. I wonder if the outcome of 98 didn't nudge them into thinking that LE/DA wasn't interested in Sandusky in the shower with young boys?

Well, we don't know the subject, other that it was an "investigation." That in itself is interesting, because Gricar was not an investigating DA.
Well, if it was Sandusky, there could have been some type of investigation. That 10/13/98 meeting might be the nexus explaining a lot of things, including what happened to Ray Gricar.

It's too bad Kane's probe doesn't have the broader focus of investigating the entire history of the Sandusky allegations, or we may learn more about the Ganter meeting and Gricar's diappearance. As it stands, the 10/13/98 meeting seems like it will remain one of the unanswered mysteries around this case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

Arguably, Spanier had the academic training, although it shouldn't have been their call to make. I wonder if the outcome of 98 didn't nudge them into thinking that LE/DA wasn't interested in Sandusky in the shower with young boys?

Spanier's academic background was in sociology and he never specialized in the role of child abuse in society. 1998 was very different in its nature than 2001.

[/quote]
It's too bad Kane's probe doesn't have the broader focus of investigating the entire history of the Sandusky allegations, or we may learn more about the Ganter meeting and Gricar's diappearance. As it stands, the 10/13/98 meeting seems like it will remain one of the unanswered mysteries around this case.[/QUOTE]

Well, the prosecution of Spanier, Curley and Schultz may give us greater insight into the 1998 meeting. If this meeting was about Sandusky, this will raise a huge amount of questions:

A. Was Paterno in the loop?

B. Does this somehow related to Gricar's disappearance (and I would not exclude murder)?

C. Did Spanier, Curley and Schultz have a better understanding that Sandusky was a threat in 1998?

One of my problems with Kane, in the campaign, was that she wanted to investigate Corbett, solely. Freed, her opponent, mentioned Gricar's failure to prosecute, specifically. While, yes, there are question on if Corbett was to slow with Victim 1, that is not the only question.

I will also say that my failure for not seeing some of this earlier is my own blind spot and stupidity.

 

[Rlaub44]

1998 was very different in its nature than 2001.

We know that because we have access to lots of documentation about both incidents. Schultz had the most information at the time of the 2001 assault, but how much they understood may be debatable. Again, it doesn't make it their call, but they might have thought it was more similar to 1998.

Well, the prosecution of Spanier, Curley and Schultz may give us greater insight into the 1998 meeting. If this meeting was about Sandusky, this will raise a huge amount of questions:

A. Was Paterno in the loop?

B. Does this somehow related to Gricar's disappearance (and I would not exclude murder)?

C. Did Spanier, Curley and Schultz have a better understanding that Sandusky was a threat in 1998?

We should know before the trials if we will have those answers - if Ganter is on the witness list, there is a good chance the meeting was Sandusky related. If Ganter isn't called as a witness in any of the Schultz/Curley/Spanier trials, then there is likely no connection. If we are asking these questions, it's obvious the prosecution would be as well.

One of my problems with Kane, in the campaign, was that she wanted to investigate Corbett, solely. Freed, her opponent, mentioned Gricar's failure to prosecute, specifically. While, yes, there are question on if Corbett was to slow with Victim 1, that is not the only question.

I will also say that my failure for not seeing some of this earlier is my own blind spot and stupidity.

I appreciate that your long-term involvement into RG's disappearance has made his perceived failures in 98 difficult to accept; much as those people who felt close to Joe Paterno need more firm proof before they might accept his culpability.

What is hard for me to understand is the continuing mysteries regarding Gricar's role in this. The fact that Karen Arnold, who was removed from this case, chose not to speak with FSS; the fact that Steve Sloane, who almost certainly recalls more than he has publically shared, is being (over?)aggressively prosecuted for what appear to be minor drug violations; the fact that despite Sara Ganim noting the 10/13/98 meeting, neither she or anyone else has asked Schreffler, Ralston, Ganter or others to clarify the purpose of the meeting. Whether or not the meeting related to Sandusky could be easily sorted out, but nobody seems to want to touch it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped

We should know before the trials if we will have those answers - if Ganter is on the witness list, there is a good chance the meeting was Sandusky related. If Ganter isn't called as a witness in any of the Schultz/Curley/Spanier trials, then there is likely no connection. If we are asking these questions, it's obvious the prosecution would be as well.

I have heard that Ganter was called before the grand jury.

I appreciate that your long-term involvement into RG's disappearance has made his perceived failures in 98 difficult to accept; much as those people who felt close to Joe Paterno need more firm proof before they might accept his culpability.

I was one of those people, regarding Paterno, if you recall correctly. And I was wrong.

What is hard for me to understand is the continuing mysteries regarding Gricar's role in this. The fact that Karen Arnold, who was removed from this case, chose not to speak with FSS; the fact that Steve Sloane, who almost certainly recalls more than he has publically shared, is being (over?)aggressively prosecuted for what appear to be minor drug violations; the fact that despite Sara Ganim noting the 10/13/98 meeting, neither she or anyone else has asked Schreffler, Ralston, Ganter or others to clarify the purpose of the meeting. Whether or not the meeting related to Sandusky could be easily sorted out, but nobody seems to want to touch it.

If you had any dealings with Arnold, you would understand. She doesn't like anything bad to come out about Gricar. This is bad. She complained about the "walk away" theory, saying, in part, that Gricar wouldn't want "... to be remembered as a ‘head case’ who simply decided one day to ‘blow off’ his family, his responsibilities, the citizens who had elected him, his staff and his future as an attorney,... . " Legacy protection?

Schreffler, Ralston, and Ganter are being guarded in their public comments.

I do not know this, but I suspect that Sloane was Ganim's "A member of law enforcement who was in the room with Gricar..." source. Sometimes you don't push sources; you can get more information that is unattributed. Look at it this way, while Sloane is now known to have been involved with the case, the initial reports did not state that. And sometimes, you don't move on just one source.

The charges may give LE extreme leverage over Sloane. They have him where they want him. I would strongly suspect that we will see something about 1998 in the Spanier, et al. trials.

BTW, sorry about the screwed up quote in the last post. And, once again, thank you all for being so incredibly civil.

 

[Rlaub44]

BTW, sorry about the screwed up quote in the last post. And, once again, thank you all for being so incredibly civil.

Always a pleasure. It helps me crystallize my understanding of things to have this dialogue with you and others here at WS.