Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8

[Tipstaff]

I just saw another article on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/jerry-sandusky-psychologist-likely-pedophile_n_1377156.html

This quote from Chambers the psychologist is just astonishing:

My consultants agree that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile's pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a "loving," "special" relationship. One colleague who has contact with the Second Mile confirms that Mr. Sandusky is reasonably intelligent and thus, could hardly have failed to understand the way his behavior would be interpreted, if known. His position at the Second Mile and his interest in abused boys would suggest that he was likely to have had knowledge with regard to child abuse and might even recognize this behavior as typical pedophile "overture."

Makes you wonder just how many people looked the other way and let Sandusky continue raping and sexually assulting boys?

 

[azwriter]

Amendola takes issue with PSU ‘victims’ reference

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/23/3136751/amendola-takes-issue-with-psu.html#storylink=cpy

Jerry Sandusky’s attorney said he is concerned when Penn State refers to those who say the former football coach abused them as “Sandusky’s victims,” when a trial hasn’t yet taken place.

“He still has not been tried,” said Joe Amendola. “The law says he’s presumed to be innocent, and yet we have these groups continuously coming up and saying they want to support the victims of Jerry Sandusky’s abuse. It’s very, very troubling.”

Amendola said Thursday that the references could make finding a fair jury even harder.

More at link.....

Thanks Reader for posting this. But you and I know this is the usual Yada, Yada, Yada, we hear from a defense attorney - the concern about finding a jury that hasn't formed an opinion. And yet, our system works; a jury is always seated.

Okay, the law looks upon Jerry as "innocent" before he is convicted. But that law isn't what's on a person's mind when they mull over the charges and speak out about the defendant. Jerry Sandusky appears to be a monster in the eyes of many. And, those people have a right to their feelings and opinions pre-trial and after the justice system runs its course.

I assume you all know that I was raised in the same hometown as Jerry and we graduated in the same class from the same high school. I knew him back then and into his early years as a Penn State coach but the more I hear the more I am shocked and he appears very guilty to me. And, I'm not about to go around and say to people "Well, he is innocent now so let's give him the benefit or doubt." This is all way too shocking for me to consider otherwise.

 

[azwriter]

Makes you wonder just how many people looked the other way and let Sandusky continue raping and sexually assulting boys?

That's an excellent question Tipstaff. But I have an additional question I hope will be answered or uncovered during the investigation or the trial. My question is:
Why? Just why did those who were in the know look the other way and allow Jerry to continue?

IMO this is the question where the answer could lead to the downfall of the University, its athletic department, Board of directors and others in a positon of authority.

Why, why why runs through my mind continually.

JMO

 

[willow]

These are the reasons: Money, Greed, Appearance, And the BIGGEST ONE- Not My Kid. They cared so little for the kids involved, it's frightening.

I believe they (the kids) were a commodity to them. There's always more where they come from. Ugh. I can't stand it. It really, really angers me.

:maddening:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Seasock had no business making a report for Centre County CYS, as they were so deeply connected with Sandusky and the Second Mile that there was no way for them to be impartial. If it was felt that a second psychological opinion was needed, it should have been arranged by Lauro's office or by Gricar's office, not by the county agency that placed foster children with the subject of the investigation and, I believe, also referred families to the agency Sandusky had founded.

Seasock himself said that he didn't deal with adult pedophiles, and that Sandusky might be one.

This is damning.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I couldn't find Dr. Chambers bio, but she has her Ph D from Penn State in 1986 and was a clinical psychologist. In that respect, in 1998, she was substantially more experienced than then Mr. Seasock.

Arnold initially handled the report, and I believe her when she said that Gricar took it. I bluntly do not believe that any District Attorney in the state would not be in contact with the victim's mother and would know that she contacted the psychologist. I further find it inconceivable that any District Attorney's Office in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would not receive full and complete copies of police reports.

 

[Reader]

Thanks Reader for posting this. But you and I know this is the usual Yada, Yada, Yada, we hear from a defense attorney - the concern about finding a jury that hasn't formed an opinion. And yet, our system works; a jury is always seated.

Okay, the law looks upon Jerry as "innocent" before he is convicted. But that law isn't what's on a person's mind when they mull over the charges and speak out about the defendant. Jerry Sandusky appears to be a monster in the eyes of many. And, those people have a right to their feelings and opinions pre-trial and after the justice system runs its course.

I assume you all know that I was raised in the same hometown as Jerry and we graduated in the same class from the same high school. I knew him back then and into his early years as a Penn State coach but the more I hear the more I am shocked and he appears very guilty to me. And, I'm not about to go around and say to people "Well, he is innocent now so let's give him the benefit or doubt." This is all way too shocking for me to consider otherwise.

I agree with you and certainly did not mean Amendola's complaint should apply to us here or anywhere where people are discussing and expressing their opinions about JS. That is for the courts and choosing the jury. Here we are allowed, as far as I understand, to discuss and give our opinions on his actions, guilt or innocence, and the actions of others involved.

Just think it's a good idea to keep on eye on what Amendola is saying and doing. This statement of his makes me think he's already looking forward to an appeal....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I agree with you and certainly did not mean Amendola's complaint should apply to us here or anywhere where people are discussing and expressing their opinions about JS. That is for the courts and choosing the jury. Here we are allowed, as far as I understand, to discuss and give our opinions on his actions, guilt or innocence, and the actions of others involved.

Just think it's a good idea to keep on eye on what Amendola is saying and doing. This statement of his makes me think he's already looking forward to an appeal....

He can't appeal, successfully, on the change of venue issue, because he wanted it in Centre County.

Look, I've said very clearly that I don't Sandusky will be found guilty of some of the charges. I still have to have some way to refer to these alleged victims. They are referred to as "Victim __." That, for me, doesn't mean that "Victim __" was an actual victim, only a means of identifying him.

 

[ThoughtFox]

That's an excellent question Tipstaff. But I have an additional question I hope will be answered or uncovered during the investigation or the trial. My question is:
Why? Just why did those who were in the know look the other way and allow Jerry to continue?

IMO this is the question where the answer could lead to the downfall of the University, its athletic department, Board of directors and others in a positon of authority.

Why, why why runs through my mind continually.

JMO

Very good questions! Your mind can run wild with speculation.

He had access to lots of money, and those guys at Penn State had made business deals connected to Second Mile.

They knew things about him, yes, but he also knew things about them. I think that's the key to this cover-up. What he knew is for investigators to uncover.

Also Sandusky was lucky to be working with men who apparently had no conscience about the abuse of children. I consider that just a lucky break for him. Their indifference helped him get away with it. And yes, I do include Paterno in that - he had to know about the 1998 incident.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Also Sandusky was lucky to be working with men who apparently had no conscience about the abuse of children. I consider that just a lucky break for him. Their indifference helped him get away with it. And yes, I do include Paterno in that - he had to know about the 1998 incident.

I don't see any information that would lead to the conclusion that Paterno knew. The report was kept in police channels and Harmon said he never told Curley.

Within the university, Schultz knew, but he never saw the reports.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Here's the 1998 police report on JS.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf

Report of expert who concluded no abuse occured.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

 

[Rlaub44]

The Centre Daily Times has compiled a timeline of the 1998 investigation - gives a helpful look at who was involved at the time and how it curiously led to no charges or CYS findings of abuse.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/25/3139115/timeline-of-1998-investigation.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here's the 1998 police report on JS.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf

Report of expert who concluded no abuse occured.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

Thank you. I had neglected to bookmark that.

The were two things in the Seasock report that I've found troubling:

A. He claimed that that it was not unknown for coaches to shower with players. That might be true, but I know of no cases where coaches bear hug players.

One case, which came out over the summer involved players touching, nonsexually, other players at the high school team did engage in what could be called "hazing." The DA brought charges.

http://www.abc27.com/story/16034569...ncident-at-football-camp?clienttype=printable

B. He claimed that there was another coach present (it wouldn't be McQueary) in the facility and shower room. Nothing in either interview suggests that there was anyone else in the shower room.

I've seen enough sexual assaults to know that they do occur in far more public places than a shower room. These include rapes of adults and of children.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I couldn't find Dr. Chambers bio, but she has her Ph D from Penn State in 1986 and was a clinical psychologist. In that respect, in 1998, she was substantially more experienced than then Mr. Seasock.

Arnold initially handled the report, and I believe her when she said that Gricar took it. I bluntly do not believe that any District Attorney in the state would not be in contact with the victim's mother and would know that she contacted the psychologist. I further find it inconceivable that any District Attorney's Office in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would not receive full and complete copies of police reports.

Unless the police are covering up for the criminal. The police report makes no mention of either JKA or RG saying to police "close the case." Dragging this back to poor missing RG simply takes the focus off Sandusky, Second Mile, and PSU. I look at all of the 1998 case in light of 2002, where we find Schultz and Curley clearly lying and covering up. All Schultz had to do after hearing of the 2002 rape was read the file from 1998. And then arrest Sandusky.

Once we see what went on in 1998, it isn't hard to think about someone from PSU deciding to close the case in 1998. If Schultz lied to a Grand Jury and the AG in 2011, and Lauro got stonewalled in 1998 (that there was "nothing to it") what's hard to believe about RG or JKA getting only part of the story? If Schreffler notes calling or talking to JKA and RG, why wouldn't he note if someone from the DA's office told him to close the case--rather than just noting that the investigators talked to Sandusky, case closed? If RG or JKA or any DA was told, as Lauro said he was told by Schreffler, "there's nothing to it," then there could be no prosecution. District attorneys are not supposed to target people for investigation, absent information from police that a crime occurred. I find the ending of the 1998 police report to be odd, curious, and suggestive that someone above Schreffler pulled the plug.

RG may just be another victim of the cover-up, a conveniently missing person to blame--even though there is no evidence he was told about 2000 or an actual rape in 2002] or the other things Sandusky got up to between 2002-2005. The police report points in two directions--PSU and Second Mile. It may even point away from Paterno, if we learn no one from PSU police ever interviewed him or the rest of the football staff in 1998.

 

[Rlaub44]

Thank you. I had neglected to bookmark that.

The were two things in the Seasock report that I've found troubling:

A. He claimed that that it was not unknown for coaches to shower with players. That might be true, but I know of no cases where coaches bear hug players.

One case, which came out over the summer involved players touching, nonsexually, other players at the high school team did engage in what could be called "hazing." The DA brought charges.

http://www.abc27.com/story/16034569...ncident-at-football-camp?clienttype=printable

B. He claimed that there was another coach present (it wouldn't be McQueary) in the facility and shower room. Nothing in either interview suggests that there was anyone else in the shower room.

I've seen enough sexual assaults to know that they do occur in far more public places than a shower room. These include rapes of adults and of children.

I was also troubled by two consecutive paragraphs, where he explained that Sandusky's behavior (showering with the boy) was consistent with his history as a coach, and in the next paragraph, stated that the physical contact between them was not consistent with the common pattern for sexual offenders.

So in linking these paragraphs, does Seasock actually believe that this physical contact is then consistent with "the expected daily routine of being a football coach?" When he asked the coaches that he contacted about showering with young boys, I wonder if he asked them about tickling, naked bear hugs, and lifting a naked child against the coach's own unclothed body? I'm guessing he wouldn't have found many coaches who agreed that this was "normal" and "healthy."

I am also guessing Mr. Seasock was not an athlete during his high school career; or if he was and views this as the norm, it raises some strong concerns about his own history with older male coaches.

 

[Rlaub44]

Unless the police are covering up for the criminal.The police report makes no mention of either JKA or RG saying to police "close the case." Dragging this back to poor missing RG simply takes the focus off Sandusky, Second Mile, and PSU. I look at all of the 1998 case in light of 2002, where we find Schultz and Curley clearly lying and covering up. All Schultz had to do after hearing of the 2002 rape was read the file from 1998. And then arrest Sandusky.

Once we see what went on in 1998, it isn't hard to think about someone from PSU deciding to close the case in 1998. If Schultz lied to a Grand Jury and the AG in 2011, and Lauro got stonewalled in 1998 (that there was "nothing to it") what's hard to believe about RG or JKA getting only part of the story? If Schreffler notes calling or talking to JKA and RG, why wouldn't he note if someone from the DA's office told him to close the case--rather than just noting that the investigators talked to Sandusky, case closed? If RG or JKA or any DA was told, as Lauro said he was told by Schreffler, "there's nothing to it," then there could be no prosecution. District attorneys are not supposed to targer people for investigation, absent information from police that a crime occurred. I find the ending of the 1998 police report to be odd, curious, and suggestive that someone above Schreffler pulled the plug.

RG may just be another victim of the cover-up, a conveniently missing person to blame--even though there is no evidence he was told about 2000 or an actual rape in 2002] or the other things Sandusky gotmup to between 2002-2005. the police report points in two directions--PSU and Second Mile. It may even point away from Paterno, if we learn no one from PSU police ever interviewed him or the rest of the football staff in 1998.

Bolded by me:

And from what we are reading about the thoroughness of the investigation, nothing leads me to believe police did interview anyone else from the football staff. Being that this investigation was revolving around Sandusky's interaction as a Second Mile staff member, have we even read that police or DPW interviewed other Second Mile administrators at the time of the 1998 incident? I don't recall reading it if they did.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Bolded by me:

And from what we are reading about the thoroughness of the investigation, nothing leads me to believe police did interview anyone else from the football staff. Being that this investigation was revolving around Sandusky's interaction as a Second Mile staff member, have we even read that police or DPW interviewed other Second Mile administrators at the time of the 1998 incident? I don't recall reading it if they did.

That's what I want to know--who did PSU police talk to? How many staffers at Second Mile? Or football coaches and staff at PSU? How many kids at Second Mile? How extensive was the investigation?

 

[Rlaub44]

Unless the police are covering up for the criminal. The police report makes no mention of either JKA or RG saying to police "close the case." Dragging this back to poor missing RG simply takes the focus off Sandusky, Second Mile, and PSU. I look at all of the 1998 case in light of 2002, where we find Schultz and Curley clearly lying and covering up. All Schultz had to do after hearing of the 2002 rape was read the file from 1998. And then arrest Sandusky.

Once we see what went on in 1998, it isn't hard to think about someone from PSU deciding to close the case in 1998. If Schultz lied to a Grand Jury and the AG in 2011, and Lauro got stonewalled in 1998 (that there was "nothing to it") what's hard to believe about RG or JKA getting only part of the story? If Schreffler notes calling or talking to JKA and RG, why wouldn't he note if someone from the DA's office told him to close the case--rather than just noting that the investigators talked to Sandusky, case closed? If RG or JKA or any DA was told, as Lauro said he was told by Schreffler, "there's nothing to it," then there could be no prosecution. District attorneys are not supposed to targer people for investigation, absent information from police that a crime occurred. I find the ending of the 1998 police report to be odd, curious, and suggestive that someone above Schreffler pulled the plug.

RG may just be another victim of the cover-up, a conveniently missing person to blame--even though there is no evidence he was told about 2000 or an actual rape in 2002] or the other things Sandusky gotmup to between 2002-2005. the police report points in two directions--PSU and Second Mile. It may even point away from Paterno, if we learn no one from PSU police ever interviewed him or the rest of the football staff in 1998.

Again, bolded by me:

Earlier references suggest that that somebody could have been Chief Harmon. Read Schreffler's quote from a December article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

At the time, Mr. Gricar spoke to Mr. Schreffler's police chief, Tom Harmon, and that was it.
"'Gricar said there wasn't enough to charge, and he said to close the case,'" Mr. Schreffler recounted.
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm

It makes it sound as if Schreffler didn't claim to hear it first hand from RFG; but instead was told by Harmon that he (Harmon) had heard from Gricar and was told to close it. I don't think we have any independent confirmation that such a conversation between Gricar and Sandusky's former neighbor Harmon ever occurred.

Might Chief Harmon have been the one who made the decision that the case should be closed? I'm not making any allegations; simply raising a possibility.

 

[Rlaub44]

That's what I want to know--who did PSU police talk to? How many staffers at Second Mile? Or football coaches and staff at PSU? How many kids at Second Mile? How extensive was the investigation?

My suspicion is that the police report that was linked earlier is a complete account. They interviewed the boy, his mother, Seasock, and Sandusky, and reviewed Chambers' report.

Nowhere in the police report does it suggest any further interviews of PSU or Second Mile staff, and nothing I have read elsewhere indicates that there were any additional interviews in the 1998 case besides those already documented in Schreffler's report. There are attachments that we haven't seen, but I doubt they are to interviews that aren't linked to a reference in the main body of the report.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

RLaub44, you've made several good observations. If Harmon decided to close the case, that would explain why Schreffler says that Gricar was the one, but that leaves open a number of possibilities--that Harmon initiated the closing of the case and used Gricar as an excuse and never talked to him; that Harmon and RG did talk but RG didn't have all the information because he didn't talk to Schreffler; that J Karen Arnold and RG were told different things by different people--or a combination of the above.

Harmon's involvement would explain why the case closed so suddenly with no attempt to reconcile the conflicting psych reports and no mention of who made the decision. It doesn't explain Lauro's contention that Schreffler said there was nothing to it, if Lauro is recalling correctly. But Schreffler could also have been repeating the department line on the case. i think it's telling that the 2002 case doesn't even involve the DA's office; somebody may have learned that having people outside PSU involved creates huge risk.