All things Joe Paterno

[J. J. in Phila]

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?

I'm not sure about the level of oversight. It wasn't in my own branch of DPW, while I was working there.

I'd expect the state to issue regulations that would be binding on CYS.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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?

Their site was down yesterday, but it is up today.

Pennsylvania's child welfare system is county-administered and state-supervised. Child welfare and juvenile justice services are organized, managed, and delivered by County Children and Youth agencies and county Juvenile probation offices.

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/dpworganization/officeofchildrenyouthandfamilies/index.htm

One of the subdivisions states this rule:

Investigating child abuse when the alleged perpetrator is a county agency employee or one of its agents;

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/dpworgan...milies/bureauofchildwelfareservices/index.htm


Sandusky might have been considered an "agent" as either a foster parent or as head of TSM.

 

[Twindad]

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.

Isn't this how Lauro was made aware? I thought her report was filed and triggered the call to DPW. I don't know how a case was supposed to be handled, so my next questions are why was Lauro sent, versus another, and who made the decision to send him?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Isn't this how Lauro was made aware? I thought her report was filed and triggered the call to DPW. I don't know how a case was supposed to be handled, so my next questions are why was Lauro sent, versus another, and who made the decision to send him?

My understanding is that Chambers, a mandatory reporter, called the child abuse line, and the mother also contacted Schreffler. She got his name from another policeman's wife and contacted him at 11:00 AM on 5/4/98.

I think the report would have gone to CYS, but because of the conflict of interest, they forwarded it to DPW.

I'm wondering if Arnold's request not to do a psychological evaluation might have resulted in her being removed from the case. Bureaucrats tend to defend turf. DPW could have regarded it as interference in their investigation.

That could have been what the disagreements were about.

 

[Twindad]

Do you mean between Gricar and Arnold? Why would they argue about that? Maybe Arnold was pissed at being removed from the case as it would look bad for her and that's what they argued about. Certainly she was never able to get elected to the position subsequently.

If DPW wanted to defend their turf, why choose a contracted employee from C & YS? Maybe DPW were hoping to deflect the blame onto C & YS, thereby covering their own *****.

 

[BigCat]

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.

Respectfully snipped

Let me add that Lauro also claimed he didn't see the Seascock report either. If Lauro was simply trying to cover his own backside, why wouldn't he reference the Seasock report? It doesn't make sense.

Plus, Lauro's been discussing the case with the media since the story broke. Surely he's smart enough to keep quiet if he's lying.

Lauro said he met Schreffler, the campus detective, twice during the investigation. Lauro said he was surprised to learn that the detective would not talk about the investigation of 1998.

“Wow,” he said. “That’s really saying something.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/aftermath-of-1998-sandusky-investigation-raises-additional-questions.html?_r=0

Lauro makes a good point there.

Personally, I could see how he (Lauro) could be described as incompetent; however, I'm not convinced he's a liar.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Do you mean between Gricar and Arnold? Why would they argue about that? Maybe Arnold was pissed at being removed from the case as it would look bad for her and that's what they argued about. Certainly she was never able to get elected to the position subsequently.

If DPW wanted to defend their turf, why choose a contracted employee from C & YS? Maybe DPW were hoping to deflect the blame onto C & YS, thereby covering their own *****.

I could see a situation where DPW would have gotten upset because somebody local was telling them who they could or couldn't have their person interview. They complained to either CYS or Gricar directly about the "interference." The "disagreements" could have been Gricar telling Arnold not to prevent Seasock from doing an early interview, and Arnold thinking it was a bad idea (and saying so). That is a possibility.

Arnold's removal might be explained in a more innocent context.

As for Seasock, possibly, looking for someone in the area that had worked in the field before. Maybe there was a call from DPW to CYS like this:

DPW: We should get a psych on the kid. Do you have anyone up there that you've dealt with?

CYS: Well, we've used this Seasock guy in the past.

DPW: Okay, use him.

It might have been bureaucratic bungling more than anything sinister. Neither Lauro nor Seasock had any ties to Penn State at the time (and nothing regarding TSM).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Isn't this how Lauro was made aware? I thought her report was filed and triggered the call to DPW. I don't know how a case was supposed to be handled, so my next questions are why was Lauro sent, versus another, and who made the decision to send him?

Chambers reported an incident on the abuse line, and Victim 1's mother called Schreffler. It is in the police report and Chambers Report. This was 5/4/98.

CYS got the report, had a conflict of interest because of TSM, and turned the case over to DPW. They assigned Lauro.

Now, because Chambers was one of the reporters, Lauro should have know of her existence. He call, however, was not reading the report into the phone. She didn't finish writing the report until 5/7/98. Schreffler picked up the report on 5/8/98 at 12:30 PM.

Even before the Chambers Report was delivered, DPW was arranging to bring Seasock in and had scheduled an appointment.

 

[ndps]

Chambers reported an incident on the abuse line, and Victim 1's mother called Schreffler. It is in the police report and Chambers Report. This was 5/4/98.

CYS got the report, had a conflict of interest because of TSM, and turned the case over to DPW. They assigned Lauro.

Now, because Chambers was one of the reporters, Lauro should have know of her existence. He call, however, was not reading the report into the phone. She didn't finish writing the report until 5/7/98. Schreffler picked up the report on 5/8/98 at 12:30 PM.

Even before the Chambers Report was delivered, DPW was arranging to bring Seasock in and had scheduled an appointment.

I started posting last year, but then realized I was letting this case affect me too much. I was raised in State College and went to PSU. I live in another state and work for a county-administered, but state run social/family services agency. What you described JJ, is similar to how things are run here. If the county family services agency has a conflict of interest, another county is assigned to investigate. If I remember correctly, there was a plan to do this with Centre County CYS, but TSM and PSU connections across the state were too entrenched, so it was referred to DPW. I think it is entirely possible that Lauro did not see the report. Not saying that he made the correct decision, but I believe you are right that the Chambers report was not the what she said in her child abuse report.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I started posting last year, but then realized I was letting this case affect me too much. I was raised in State College and went to PSU. I live in another state and work for a county-administered, but state run social/family services agency. What you described JJ, is similar to how things are run here. If the county family services agency has a conflict of interest, another county is assigned to investigate. If I remember correctly, there was a plan to do this with Centre County CYS, but TSM and PSU connections across the state were too entrenched, so it was referred to DPW. I think it is entirely possible that Lauro did not see the report. Not saying that he made the correct decision, but I believe you are right that the Chambers report was not the what she said in her child abuse report.

Good to see you post again.

From what I understand, TSM was contracted for some things by Centre County CYS. That is what created the conflict of interest.

I've been looking at the dates, and they had brought in someone, presumably Seasock, prior to Schreffler getting the Chambers Report. It's from the date of the reports and police file. The Seasock Report was sent to CYS on 5/21/98, according to the date stamp.

Unless they could really be sure of Seasock's findings, before he investigated, this wasn't a set up. There were no tied between him and Penn State, though he was employed as a consultant a few years later. He had not published much and nothing on pedophiles methods so they could not have guessed where he would come down based on his writing.

On another site, someone posted the name of Lauro's supervisor. He's not an alumnus, and looks like he was a career employee of DPW.

 

[Twindad]

"On another site, someone posted the name of Lauro's supervisor. He's not an alumnus, and looks like he was a career employee of DPW."

Would you be so kind as to provide the link for the site and name?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"On another site, someone posted the name of Lauro's supervisor. He's not an alumnus, and looks like he was a career employee of DPW."

Would you be so kind as to provide the link for the site and name?

Well, it is at the macadamia ranch. The source was given as Ray Blehar, so you might want to check with him.

I checked the name with alumni directory. He didn't attend Penn State. I Googled and found a press report indicating that the same person was working for DPW a decade before (though might have been promoted from that time).

 

[JaimeSommers]

RS&BBM ...

Well, it is at the macadamia ranch. The source was given as Ray Blehar, so you might want to check with him.

What does this mean?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RS&BBM ...



What does this mean?

Another poster called a different site the "macadamia ranch." It has a few posters with massive conspiracy theories. I generally disagree with Blehar, but some of his research is good.

Note that I didn't say I didn't post there. (Well occasionally.)

 

[Reader]

TIMELINE USING THE BLEHAR REPORT AND POLICE REPORT

TIMELINE OF 1998 CYS/DPW INVESTIGATION (From Blehar)

May 3, 1998 9:00PM Victim 6 dropped off at home by Sandusky.

May 4, 1998 7:43AM Mother of Victim 6 called Dr. Chambers.

May 4, 1998 11:25AM Mother and Victim 6 reported incident to police.
[Det. Schreffler interviewed the boy the same day]

May 4, 1998 12:25PM Police Det. Schreffler explained incident to J. Miller, CYS.

May 4, 1998 3:00PM Victim 6 and Mother met with Dr. Chambers.

May 4, 1998 8:10PM Miller and Schreffler interviewed B.K. (friend of V6).

May 4, 1998 9:30PM Miller and Schreffler re-interviewed Victim 6.

May 5, 1998 9:00AM CYS held meeting to decide “what to do.”

May 5, 1998 1:55PM J. Lauro, DPW, informed Police he will be assigned to case. Lauro stated Sandusky will be interviewed on 7 May. [No record that this was done]*

ADDED BY ME FROM BLEHAR: Dr. Chambers stated in her 16 October 2012 interview that she released her report to Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS).  Dr. Chambers made an oral report to ChildLine1 detailing the information in her report. ChildLine reports are received by the Pennsylvania DPW.

May 7, 1998 11:00AM Lauro met with police.

ADDED BY ME: On page 17 of 25 of LE report, Schreffler states during meeting with Lauro:

'Reporting officer was given a copy of the Childline Report of Suspected Abuse and Neglect."

LAURO HAD THE CHILDLINE REPORT AND HE GAVE A COPY TO SCHREFFLER ON 5/7

Lauro rec’d transcribed interviews of V6 & B.K.

Lauro reviewed case file of J. Miller (CYS).

May 7, 1998 11:15AM Lauro and police went to residence of Victim 6.

Lauro interviewed mother of Victim 6. [No indication he ever interviewed either child]

May 7, 1998 ADA Arnold advised police to postpone evaluation of V6.

May 8, 1998 11:20AM Police informed CYS to postpone evaluation of V6.
May 8, 1998 11:40AM 11 Police informed DPW to postpone evaluation of V6.

May 8, 1998 11:55AM Lauro informed police that DPW was going forward with the evaluation.

May 8, 1998 2:00PM Victim 6 evaluated by John Seasock, contractor of CYS.

May 9, 1998 12:30PM Seasock informed police of results of evaluation of V6.
Seasock stated Sandusky does not fit profile of a pedophile.

ADDED BY ME: Schreffler questioned Seasock and found he knew little about the case and had gone into the interview 'cold'.

Schreffler states on LE report p. 19 of 25 that Seasock is a consultant to Centre County Mental Health and CPS.

May 11, 1998 3:10PM Seasock returned call of mother of Victim 6. He advises
Sandusky’s calls to her son are customary weekly follow ups by
Second Mile. The mother stated her daughter who is in TSM is not
called weekly.

May 13, 1998 Police informed that DPW wanted to “resolve the matter quickly.”

< 18 day inactive period > [No indication how Lauro spent this time]

June 1, 1998 11:00AM Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky. Determined no sexual assault occurred.

Case closed.

*ADDED BY ME: LAURO WAS NOT BOUND BY LE'S FINDINGS AND CLOSING THEIR CASE. HE COULD HAVE CONTINUED HIS OWN INVESTIGATION.

From Blehar: In accordance with Pa. 055 § 3490.5320 and Pa. 055 § 3490.54,21 the DPW was required to investigate the case because Sandusky – through his employment and association with Second Mile – was considered an “agent” of the county.

21 Except for reports investigated by the Department, the county agency shall 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. A county agency may rely on an investigation of substantially the same allegations by a law enforcement agency to support the county agency’s finding regarding a child abuse report. This reliance does not limit the duties required of the county agency by section 6368 of the CPSL (relating to investigation of reports).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped:

TIMELINE USING THE BLEHAR REPORT AND POLICE REPORT

May 7, 1998 11:00AM Lauro met with police.

ADDED BY ME: On page 17 of 25 of LE report, Schreffler states during meeting with Lauro:

'Reporting officer was given a copy of the Childline Report of Suspected Abuse and Neglect."

LAURO HAD THE CHILDLINE REPORT AND HE GAVE A COPY TO SCHREFFLER ON 5/7

Thus not the Chambers Report, but a record of the call to the Abuse Line.

Schreffler picked up the written Chambers Report, the one we have a redacted copy of, on 5/8/98 at 12:30 PM (Redacted Police File, p. 10).

There is no evidence that Lauro ever saw the Chambers Report, but he obviously knew that Chambers was the reporter. He apparently never spoke with her.

There are a whole bunch of questions regarding Lauro. Did he request to see the police files? Was his request declined? Why didn't he speak with Chambers?

 

[Reader]

From my post above:

Dr. Chambers made an oral report to ChildLine1 detailing the information in her report. ChildLine reports are received by the Pennsylvania DPW.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From my post above:

Dr. Chambers made an oral report to ChildLine1 detailing the information in her report. ChildLine reports are received by the Pennsylvania DPW.

That still would not be her full report. Schreffler indicated he had the Chambers Report (the one we have) on 5/8/98. The last date on her report is 5/7/98, so it could not have been the full report on 5/5/98. It looks like she reported it on 5/4/98.

It appears to be a copy of her oral report to the Abuse Line. That still should indicate, beyond doubt, that Lauro knew Chambers was the initial reporter. He still did not contact her.

 

[Reader]

1/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/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/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.

4/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?

1/That's not what I meant...I mean they brought in ANOTHER so-called expert, meaning Seasock, in addition to Chambers, whose oral report they had received after Lauro was assigned the case, so the call would have been either forwarded to him if he was in the office, or transcribed for him to read later. He also had received the CPS file from Miller by the 7th and reviewed it, which by then should have contained Chambers' written report,
or Miller would have forwarded it to Lauro as the lead on the case. Granted I'm talking about how things are supposed to work, not how they really did.

We know now that he gave a copy of the Childline report to Schreffler on 5/7 also. Of course it's not the full report but Dr. Chambers said she gave an oral report of all the details of her written report, so surely Lauro got the main information that JS was a suspected pedophile who was grooming children.

2/Pa. DPW and CPS did not work as most states' agencies did then. Obviously we have found that their reporting requirements were lacking and have now been changed. In my work with child welfare and CPS in 2 states, some time ago, yes, but that should only indicate improvement in their methods...in each state, the worker would have gone to a 2nd child who it was indicated was abused by the same person, no new report is needed if it is the same abuser, it's an extension of the first case...to not investigate would mean to not do your job...if help is needed, you call LE for an assistance. It is possible to even make different findings on different children. Sometimes certain children in families are targeted. We know that JS chose his targets well.

3/Schreffler received the Childline report from Lauro on 5/7 and Seasock interviewed the child on 5/8.

4/When he got notice of Chambers' call why did he not call Dr. Chambers back to discuss her findings? Perhaps because when he/DPW got the findings that JS was a possible pedophile and was grooming children, he and his supervisor were busy in a panic getting an appointment for the child with another (unqualified) counselor the state had contacts with in hopes of a different finding, due to their fear of being sued for placing children in the
2nd Mile program and home of JS as foster children and adoptive children....IMO

We do know that JS continued to abuse more children for 14 more years after this laughable investigation by their agencies. It's the very definition of obfuscation, using the oldest excuses in the world...I didn't get that piece of paper or call! He/she never told me that! It's like playing 'whose on first' to keep up with their games of hide and seek. Coordination? GMAB...I believe it was deliberate and that Lauro let's just say, has a problem getting his facts straight, if lying is too strong.

I've sought and don't see that Lauro did any investigation on his own, he merely took what was there, except the Chambers' report that he did not want to see, and toddled along after LE. DPW/Lauro's JOB was to find
out the information from all other persons, agencies, LE involved, and put it together to make the best decision for the children. There is nothing to indicate he took any actions on his own to do this. What was he doing in
the blank space between 5/8 and 6/1? Apparently nothing.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

1/That's not what I meant...I mean they brought in ANOTHER so-called expert, meaning Seasock, in addition to Chambers, whose oral report they had received after Lauro was assigned the case, so the call would have been either forwarded to him if he was in the office, or transcribed for him to read later. He also had received the CPS file from Miller by the 7th and reviewed it, which by then should have contained Chambers' written report,
or Miller would have forwarded it to Lauro as the lead on the case. Granted I'm talking about how things are supposed to work, not how they really did.

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.

We know now that he gave a copy of the Childline report to Schreffler on 5/7 also. Of course it's not the full report but Dr. Chambers said she gave an oral report of all the details of her written report, so surely Lauro got the main information that JS was a suspected pedophile who was grooming children.

Her conclusions might not have been in or even if she had consulted with others.

4/When he got notice of Chambers' call why did he not call Dr. Chambers back to discuss her findings? Perhaps because when he/DPW got the findings that JS was a possible pedophile and was grooming children, he and his supervisor were busy in a panic getting an appointment for the child with another (unqualified) counselor the state had contacts with in hopes of a different finding, due to their fear of being sued for placing children in the
2nd Mile program and home of JS as foster children and adoptive children....IMO

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

We do know that JS continued to abuse more children for 14 more years after this laughable investigation by their agencies. It's the very definition of obfuscation, using the oldest excuses in the world...I didn't get that piece of paper or call! He/she never told me that! It's like playing 'whose on first' to keep up with their games of hide and seek. Coordination? GMAB...I believe it was deliberate and that Lauro let's just say, has a problem getting his facts straight, if lying is too strong.

I've sought and don't see that Lauro did any investigation on his own, he merely took what was there, except the Chambers' report that he did not want to see, and toddled along after LE. DPW/Lauro's JOB was to find
out the information from all other persons, agencies, LE involved, and put it together to make the best decision for the children. There is nothing to indicate he took any actions on his own to do this. What was he doing in
the blank space between 5/8 and 6/1? Apparently nothing.[/QUOTE]

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?