All things Joe Paterno

[JaimeSommers]

Some idiot elsewhere accused me of being "gleeful." I can assure you I was not.

Can't really speak to this since I was talking about Corbett and corroborating the ESPN story's description of his behavior on Saturday, November 12, 2011.

ETA: RSBM

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Can't really speak to this since I was talking about Corbett and corroborating the ESPN story's description of his behavior on Saturday, November 12, 2011.

ETA: RSBM

I just meant that it was not a celebratory time. I've referred to this, in all seriousness as "Central Pennsylvania Gothic." It sounds funny, but I'm dead serious.

This was, is, and probably will be, absolute horror.

 

[JaimeSommers]

I just meant that it was not a celebratory time.

Turn that frown upside-down, my friend. You've got drinks to buy!

I interpreted your response to be saying, "I was once accused of being gleeful when I wasn't, so Corbett probably wasn't being gleeful, either, even though you think he was." I understand now that wasn't what you meant. No worries!

This was, is, and probably will be, absolute horror.

It has had tentacles you can't even imagine.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Turn that frown upside-down, my friend. You've got drinks to buy!

I interpreted your response to be saying, "I was once accused of being gleeful when I wasn't, so Corbett probably wasn't being gleeful, either, even though you think he was." I understand now that wasn't what you meant. No worries!

Not quite. Corbett is, at heart, a prosecutor. They celebrate victories. Removing the influence of Paterno was a short term victory. A victory over sheep.

It has had tentacles you can't even imagine.

I can image a great deal, but I need evidence.

 

[Twindad]

A cover up of a cover up of a cover up of a cover up! CYA and keep the money coming!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A cover up of a cover up of a cover up of a cover up! CYA and keep the money coming!

Suppose that the reason 2001 was not reported was to cover up what happened, or didn't happen, in 1998?

 

[JaimeSommers]

Not quite. Corbett is, at heart, a prosecutor. They celebrate victories. Removing the influence of Paterno was a short term victory. A victory over sheep.

Had he not been an AG at the beginning with an eye on the governorship, I'd give him an honest victory. Had he not courted Paterno's favor during his governor's campaign and been turned down, I'd give him an honest victory. Had he taken an active interest in his board seat before everything happened, I'd give him an honest victory. This was about personal and political agendas and vendettas. IMO.

Be clear: I'm not a Paterno apologist. He failed as a leader and as a human being. But Corbett celebrating a "victory" on November 12 as if it was a legitimate win is pathetic. IMO.

Originally Posted by JaimeSommers

It has had tentacles you can't even imagine.

I can image a great deal, but I need evidence.

I'm talking about collateral damage. Senior leaders panicking about their jobs under a new president, so they're destroying their respective divisions by getting rid of people that threaten their (perceived) security. Senior leaders who have nothing to do, so they're getting rid of people and taking over their areas so it looks like they serve a purpose. Senior leaders who have checked out and are leaving their divisions to languish or implode while they focus on getting another job.

For those of us watching the last year-and-a-half from the inside, it's a scary place to be.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Had he not been an AG at the beginning with an eye on the governorship, I'd give him an honest victory. Had he not courted Paterno's favor during his governor's campaign and been turned down, I'd give him an honest victory. Had he taken an active interest in his board seat before everything happened, I'd give him an honest victory. This was about personal and political agendas and vendettas. IMO.

I think we are saying the same thing. Prosecutors celebrate their victories; governor's don't. Corbett treated like a courtroom victory; it wasn't and he shouldn't have done that. It was the destruction of an icon, a necessary destruction, but not a reason to celebrate.

Respectfully snipped.

I'm talking about collateral damage. Senior leaders panicking about their jobs under a new president, so they're destroying their respective divisions by getting rid of people that threaten their (perceived) security. Senior leaders who have nothing to do, so they're getting rid of people and taking over their areas so it looks like they serve a purpose. Senior leaders who have checked out and are leaving their divisions to languish or implode while they focus on getting another job.

For those of us watching the last year-and-a-half from the inside, it's a scary place to be.

That is the part I have not witnessed. Another side to the devastation brought by the Sandusky/Penn State scandal.

 

[JaimeSommers]

Suppose that the reason 2001 was not reported was to cover up what happened, or didn't happen, in 1998?

J. J., can you please remind me from way back when on the Gricar thread: Weren't there missing pages from something in 1998? Did the time frame of those missing pages fit the date of the Ganter meeting? For some reason I'm thinking the time frames aren't related, but wanted to double-check.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Oddly applicable to this discussion: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj9mjI0jBDM"]Flying Pickets - Porterhouse Blue (Original TV theme) - YouTube[/ame]

"Collegium, Collegium acclamus
Porterhouse, Porterhouse
To live and die in Porterhouse!
Dives in omnia! "

This is posted with extreme irony.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

J. J., can you please remind me from way back when on the Gricar thread: Weren't there missing pages from something in 1998? Did the time frame of those missing pages fit the date of the Ganter meeting? For some reason I'm thinking the time frames aren't related, but wanted to double-check.

The unreleased pages are from May 1998. The Ganter meeting was scheduled for 10/13/98.

 

[Reader]

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

Thanks, Twindad, very interesting link and there are several things about it that I wish to comment about:

1/One of the complaints and the purpose of this report by Mr. Blehar is that Freeh:

failed to consider the evidence – much of it contained in the Freeh report - that provided the basis to reasonably conclude that the DPW and CYS failed to conduct a thorough investigation in 1998 and were primarily responsible for allowing Sandusky to victimize children for over 14 years.

However, Freeh makes clear that their purpose was not to determine whether these state agencies met their responsibilities or not, however, enough information was still provided that the writer of this report could use to make his conclusions.

Purpose of Freeh was to investigate actions of PSU and personnel and to make corrective recommendations to the school:

As Special Investigative Counsel, FSS was asked to perform an independent, full and complete investigation of:
The alleged failure of Pennsylvania State University personnel to respond to, and report to the appropriate authorities, the sexual abuse of children by former University football coach Gerald A. Sandusky ("Sandusky");
The circumstances under which such abuse could occur in University facilities or under the auspices of University programs for youth. In addition, the Special Investigative Counsel was asked to provide
recommendations regarding University governance, oversight, and administrative policies and procedures that will better enable the University to prevent and more effectively respond to incidents of sexual
abuse of minors in the future.

2/Mr. Blehar provides interesting information regarding Mr. Lauro's involvement in the 1998 investigation and brings into doubt his veracity or maybe his memory. I've said before that he did not do a very thorough investigation and just seemed to leave it up to LE. He said he 'was not provided access to Dr. Chambers' report', but it was made verbally to his own agency and he could have accessed it. He also reviewed the CPS file in which the written report was available. He placed all responsibility on LE for making the decision not to make charges, but his own agency had full rights to continue an investigation and every reason to do so since clearly child abuse WAS indicated. There are quite a few contradictions in his accounts.

Discussion:
The Freeh Report understates the role and responsibilities of Jerry Lauro as the lead investigator of the 1998 incident. Furthermore, the Freeh Report does not challenge the veracity of Lauro’s claims about his knowledge of the facts of the investigation, despite the existence of ample evidence to the contrary (available on the public record).

Facts:·
On May 5th, 1998, Jerry Lauro was assigned to the case in accordance with Pa. 055 § 3490.53 and Pa. 055 § 3490.54 which require investigations of county agents to be conducted by DPW. There is no provision in the statutes for high profile individuals being turned over by county agencies to the DPW for investigation.27

· On May 7, 1998, Jerry Lauro reviewed the case file of CYS caseworker John Miller, received the transcribed statements of Victim 6 and his friend, and interviewed the mother of Victim 6. Based on the information contained in Exhibits 2H and 2I, the transcribed statements included numerous signs of grooming behaviors and possible child sexual abuse.

· On or about May 7, 1998, Dr. Alycia Chambers released her psychological evaluation of Victim 6 through an oral report to ChildLine, which is administered by DPW. As the lead investigator on the case, Jerry Lauro should have had access to this information.

-----------

On May 8, 1998, Jerry Lauro called Detective Schreffler to inform him that DPW had ordered28 a second evaluation of Victim 6 (see Appendix A of this 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: “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.”

· On or about May 13, 1998, DPW contacted Chief Thomas Harmon to inform the police that “the psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised they want to resolve this quickly.”30

· The 1998 police report and the Freeh Report provide no evidence of DPW’s or Lauro’s involvement in the case from 8 May 1998 until June 1, 1998, when Lauro and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky.

· Lauro, who was the lead investigator on the case, stated, “it wasn’t until Schreffler told me that there wasn’t anything to the case that I closed mine.” However, in a Pittsburgh PostGazette article,31 Lauro stated: "It didn't meet the criteria," and "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

3/Some more interesting items pointed about CYS/DPW/Lauro's involvement......just a FUBAR all around, or was it switch and bait, was it a deliberate obfuscation, was 'what to do' predetermined, why did they want to resolve it quickly? What was Lauro doing on the case from May 8 to June 1?

The CYS and DPW investigators, who were trained professionals at detecting incidents of child abuse, were aware of up to 14 signs of child sexual abuse, based on the interviews of Victim 6, B.K. and the mother of Victim 6.

 The DPW and CYS caseworkers were aware of the possibility of other potential victims, yet did not interview or seek out any of these children. Based on the grand jury presentment and the book, Touched, six to eight boys were in frequent contact with Sandusky around 1998

 On the second morning of the investigation, CYS called a meeting - after learning of over a dozen signs of possible sexual abuse -- “to decide what to do.”5

 The DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro, took over 6 the case from CYS on May
5th and on May 7th he reviewed the case file of CYS, received transcribed interviews of the two children involved in the case, and interviewed the mother of Victim 6.

 On or about May 7th , Dr. Alycia Chambers released her written psychological reports 7 to the University Park Police, CYS and made an oral report to DPW stating that Sandusky was exhibiting grooming behaviors common to pedophiles.

*The Freeh Report did not question or challenge Jerry Lauro’s assertion that he did not have access to the full facts of the case, that he was unaware of Dr. Chambers’ evaluation, and did not highlight the fact that DPW also had conflict of interest issues with The Second Mile.

*According to Pa. 055 § 3490.171 (b) CYS was required to immediately file a report with ChildLine (DPW) and according to Pa. 055 § 3490.56 (a), CYS was required to notify The Second Mile within 24 hours of receipt of the report of suspected abuse. (4)(b) The Second Mile was required to implement a plan of supervision. (4)(c) CYS was also required to notify The Second Mile of the results of the investigation.
11

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not directed at you Reader:

The CYS and DPW investigators, who were trained professionals at detecting incidents of child abuse, were aware of up to 14 signs of child sexual abuse, based on the interviews of Victim 6, B.K. and the mother of Victim 6.

Well, DPW brought in Seasock as their expert, who said there was none.

 The DPW and CYS caseworkers were aware of the possibility of other potential victims, yet did not interview or seek out any of these children. Based on the grand jury presentment and the book, Touched, six to eight boys were in frequent contact with Sandusky around 1998

If I understand correctly, DPW investigates a reported incident. It does not, like the AG's did, go for a broad investigation. That would be LE.

 On the second morning of the investigation, CYS called a meeting - after learning of over a dozen signs of possible sexual abuse -- “to decide what to do.”5

This was due to the conflict of interest

 The DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro, took over 6 the case from CYS on May
5th and on May 7th he reviewed the case file of CYS, received transcribed interviews of the two children involved in the case, and interviewed the mother of Victim 6.

 On or about May 7th , Dr. Alycia Chambers released her written psychological reports 7 to the University Park Police, CYS and made an oral report to DPW stating that Sandusky was exhibiting grooming behaviors common to pedophiles.

This is where the meat of the issue is, regarding DPW. Chambers was one who was the mandatory reporter; she reported it, promptly. Why didn't Lauro contact her? Why didn't Lauro ask for Schreffler's files? As there were not a lot of child abuse cases on campus, I can understand why Schreffler might not have known what was or wasn't important to DPW. I can understand, without Arnold on the case, how, innocently, the Chambers Report was not sent to DPW.

Lauro had no ties to Penn State. There were clearly problems with his investigation.

 

[Reader]

Not directed at you Reader:



1/Well, DPW brought in Seasock as their expert, who said there was none.



2/If I understand correctly, DPW investigates a reported incident. It does not, like the AG's did, go for a broad investigation. That would be LE.



This was due to the conflict of interest



3/This is where the meat of the issue is, regarding DPW. Chambers was one who was the mandatory reporter; she reported it, promptly. Why didn't Lauro contact her? Why didn't Lauro ask for Schreffler's files? As there were not a lot of child abuse cases on campus, I can understand why Schreffler might not have known what was or wasn't important to DPW. I can understand, without Arnold on the case, how, innocently, the Chambers Report was not sent to DPW.

Lauro had no ties to Penn State. There were clearly problems with his investigation.

1/The question is why did DPW bring in another expert who also had conflicts in the case and was not as qualified as Dr. Chambers? Why did they want to do this when she had already said JS was suspected to be a pedophile and was grooming the children? It's like they were trying to find someone to contradict her. Seasock's report should not have been accepted over Dr. Chambers'.

2/DPW's entire purpose is the protection of children. If I'm working on a case in the field and find the same person has possibly abused another child, am I required to ignore it? NO, I go to the child/home and investigate that incident also. If it is the same abuser it's considered all part of the same original report.

3/Chambers' report WAS available to Lauro/DPW since she reported it orally and I'm sure a record of her call was made, else how would they know she did this? Lauro also examined Miller's CPS file and the first thing filed in the case would be the written report of abuse from Chambers. IOW, Lauro lied about not knowing about the report.

 

[JaimeSommers]

RS&BBM ...

1/The question is why did DPW bring in another expert who also had conflicts in the case and was not as qualified as Dr. Chambers? Why did they want to do this when she had already said JS was suspected to be a pedophile and was grooming the children? It's like they were trying to find someone to contradict her. Seasock's report should not have been accepted over Dr. Chambers'.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

1/The question is why did DPW bring in another expert who also had conflicts in the case and was not as qualified as Dr. Chambers? Why did they want to do this when she had already said JS was suspected to be a pedophile and was grooming the children? It's like they were trying to find someone to contradict her. Seasock's report should not have been accepted over Dr. Chambers'.

Okay, first, DPW did not bring in Chambers; she was Victim 6's psychologist. Seasock did not have any conflict. At the time DPW involved Seasock, they did not have the Chambers report.

2/DPW's entire purpose is the protection of children. If I'm working on a case in the field and find the same person has possibly abused another child, am I required to ignore it? NO, I go to the child/home and investigate that incident also. If it is the same abuser it's considered all part of the same original report.

From what I'm piecing together, that is not how DPW works. They investigate reported incidents and report if the incident constitutes abuse (U, I, F).

3/Chambers' report WAS available to Lauro/DPW since she reported it orally and I'm sure a record of her call was made, else how would they know she did this? Lauro also examined Miller's CPS file and the first thing filed in the case would be the written report of abuse from Chambers. IOW, Lauro lied about not knowing about the report.

The CYS file would probably not include the Chambers Report. They turned the case over to DPW prior to the report being received by Schreffler; Seasock was involved prior to the Chambers Report being turned over to Schreffler.

Now, there are several questions:

1. Is Lauro lying when he said he didn't see the Chambers Report until 2012?

2. If not, why didn't he look at the police file? Did Schreffler say no?

3. Chambers was the initial mandatory reporter. Why didn't Lauro contact her? DPW should have her information and even investigating the incident alone, it would make sense to contact the initial reporter.

4. The DA's Office normally would coordinate with CYS/DPW? Did they have the Chambers Report, or the police report that indicated there was a Chambers Report (and it is hugely likely they would have the police report)? Was there the the normal coordination with CYS/DPW?

 

[JaimeSommers]

Lubrano wants a refund.

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/24/3513835/lubrano-seeks-refund-on-freeh.html

 

[Twindad]

I know you don't care for Mr. Keisling, JJ, but this is a good article:
http://newslanc.com/2013/01/19/district-attorney-ray-gricar-drops-the-ball/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I know you don't care for Mr. Keisling, JJ, but this is a good article:
http://newslanc.com/2013/01/19/district-attorney-ray-gricar-drops-the-ball/

And I still don't.

Actually, I cited this on the Gricar thread. Keisling ran around for years trying to link Gricar's disappearance to drug dealers and Jonathan Luna, even though it was exceedingly silly.

Now, abet with slightly more evidence, he tries to come up Gricar leaving because of Sandusky. Yes, it is possible, but there is no actual evidence of it.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/09/26/3350117/the-motive-problem.html

 

[Twindad]

Is/was the children and youth services overseen by DPW? So when someone talks about them referring back and forth to each other, they're just moving up and down the chain of command?