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

[Reader]

The first person to see those missing pgs of the PSU police report, PLEASE post it here. What's wasn't published starts with the first mention of Gricar; then we get the ending where Schreffler and Lauro met with Sandusky--said we've got no evidence--Case Closed.

I know a bit about the law, but am not a lawyer. I think it's important to remember our own legal training, as well as all the evidence we don't have, when we make judgments we're not in a fully-informed nor professionally-credentialed position to make.

Doesn't mean I don't get as frustrated with Sandusky's escapades as anybody else. But, you know, it might be that Gricar was an honest man, with more facts than we have. And in a better position to judge the likelihood of getting a conviction than we are.

Unless some of us know something not available to the public. In which case--spill the beans already! I want somebody to direct my anger at over Sandusky, too. But I want it to be the right person(s).

"“He wasn’t media savvy,” Sloane said. “He didn’t read local papers and follow local gossip. It wouldn’t have mattered if it was Joe Paterno or a 10-repeat felon. He would treat them the same way if they were legit suspected of committing crimes.”

But he wasn’t a rash prosecutor, either, Buehner said.

“I would say this about Ray: He would be extremely cautious in proceeding because he wanted to make sure that there would be a reasonable likelihood of conviction. You don’t want to go after someone high profile unless you have a compelling case.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind..._da_ray_g.html

So we're not supposed to express our opinions on this opinion board without a law degree or being a professional?

Look, as far as I'm concerned from what I have read so far there was a prosecutable case against Sandusky in 1998 for the crime of lewdness, with this one boy and possibly another. The DA had all the reports and documents. JS admitted what he did to witnessess. It should have gone to trial and I only want to know why it did not. Gricar made that decision. Why?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So we're not supposed to express our opinions on this opinion board without a law degree or being a professional?

Look, as far as I'm concerned from what I have read so far there was a prosecutable case against Sandusky in 1998 for the crime of lewdness, with this one boy and possibly another. The DA had all the reports and documents. JS admitted what he did to witnessess. It should have gone to trial and I only want to know why it did not. Gricar made that decision. Why?

You are correct, but it is under the open lewdness clause of Unlawful Contact with Minors charge.

Here is the appropriate text:

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html



"Open lewdness" is a different charge. Under Unlawful Contact with Minor charge, there basically a laundry list of charges and it if the perp can be charged with any one (or several) the things on the list, Unlawful Contact can be filed. It's basically, the perp engages in some other act with/in front of a minor, and that some other act is on the list, showing a minor a pornographic video, for example, he could be charged with it.

If, for example, I'm in the library at Penn State and I "amuse myself," I could be charged with open lewdness (a basketball player was so charged). If the librarians 10 year old son happened to standing be there, I could be charged with Unlawful Contact, even if I no inclination at all toward the son. That would be true even if I put my coat across my lap so you couldn't actually see anything (and there is case law to that effect in PA).

An unfortunately graphic explanation.

Also keep in mind that Dr. Chambers' opinion was not admissible, and neither was Mr. Seasock's opinion, so other that raising a red flag, there wasn't anything RFG could do with it.

 

[Reader]

You are correct, but it is under the open lewdness clause of Unlawful Contact with Minors charge.

Here is the appropriate text:

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html



"Open lewdness" is a different charge. Under Unlawful Contact with Minor charge, there basically a laundry list of charges and it if the perp can be charged with any one (or several) the things on the list, Unlawful Contact can be filed. It's basically, the perp engages in some other act with/in front of a minor, and that some other act is on the list, showing a minor a pornographic video, for example, he could be charged with it.

If, for example, I'm in the library at Penn State and I "amuse myself," I could be charged with open lewdness (a basketball player was so charged). If the librarians 10 year old son happened to standing be there, I could be charged with Unlawful Contact, even if I no inclination at all toward the son. That would be true even if I put my coat across my lap so you couldn't actually see anything (and there is case law to that effect in PA).

An unfortunately graphic explanation.

Also keep in mind that Dr. Chambers' opinion was not admissible, and neither was Mr. Seasock's opinion, so other that raising a red flag, there wasn't anything RFG could do with it.[/QUOTE]

OK, thanks on explaining the charge further. BBM....but what I understood from previous posts, although those opinions could not be used as evidence, what the child told them about the event could be used...correct?

 

[ThoughtFox]

So we're not supposed to express our opinions on this opinion board without a law degree or being a professional?

Look, as far as I'm concerned from what I have read so far there was a prosecutable case against Sandusky in 1998 for the crime of lewdness, with this one boy and possibly another. The DA had all the reports and documents. JS admitted what he did to witnessess. It should have gone to trial and I only want to know why it did not. Gricar made that decision. Why?

I'm not a lawyer either, and I understand the sympathy for Gricar since he is missing and might have been a victim also.

But heck - while I would love to believe that Gricar was a perfect prosecutor who always did the right thing at all times, I'm really puzzled about why he didn't push things in 98.

Grand Juries are called all the time all over the country for much lesser charges - honestly, you don't have to be an attorney to know that.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

OK, thanks on explaining the charge further. BBM....but what I understood from previous posts, although those opinions could not be used as evidence, what the child told them about the event could be used...correct?

That's what the Dauphin County DA said. It could be permitted, but it would be up to the judge.

If permitted, it would be a minor boost of Victim 6's credibility. With Sandusky's admission, it would just be minor.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not a lawyer either, and I understand the sympathy for Gricar since he is missing and might have been a victim also.

But heck - while I would love to believe that Gricar was a perfect prosecutor who always did the right thing at all times, I'm really puzzled about why he didn't push things in 98.

Grand Juries are called all the time all over the country for much lesser charges - honestly, you don't have to be an attorney to know that.

I think one of the key factors is looking at some of RFG's other cases, which I did well before the Sandusky case. He tended to prosecute cases that, just looking at if from the outside, were going to be almost impossible to win. In 2010, before the investigators ever heard of Victim 6, I did a blog on this: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html The Grove case that was mentioned in was less than 18 months before the 1998 incident.

Looking at other cases, it is the same thing. I found a highly publicized rape case from the early 2000's against a Penn State football player. It got controversial because Paterno let the guy suit up for a bowl game and made some stupid comment about rape. The victim, however, continued seeing the accused after the alleged rape. It was only the victim's word and her actions didn't match what you'd expect from a rape victim. RFG lost the case, but he still fought it out in court. There is a link to it in an earlier Gricar thread.

The question is, if he prosecuted these others, with weaker evidence, why didn't he prosecute Sandusky?

 

[Reader]

That's what the Dauphin County DA said. It could be permitted, but it would be up to the judge.

If permitted, it would be a minor boost of Victim 6's credibility. With Sandusky's admission, it would just be minor.

I'm a little confused about what you mean here...did you mean 'with' or 'without' JS's admission 'it would just be minor.'?

It seems to me that if the court allowed the doctor's statement of the child's account plus JS's admission, it would be a major boost to the case.

Also, another thought about those papers from the real psychologist and the wanna be...their value to RG would also be in how HE considered and evaluated them in relation to the truth of the boy's account as evidence, no matter if they could actually be presented in court or not. I have a feeling he would have discounted the laughable 'coachly' opinion and would have thought more of what Dr. Chambers wrote and her opinion.

In relation to that, do we have any records of how many child abuse cases RG had handled previously and how active he was generally in prosecuting them?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm a little confused about what you mean here...did you mean 'with' or 'without' JS's admission 'it would just be minor.'?

The fact that Victim 6 repeated his story, and it was materially the same, days after, gives a little bit of support that he, Victim 6, is honest. A bit.

It seems to me that if the court allowed the doctor's statement of the child's account plus JS's admission, it would be a major boost to the case.

The fact that Victim 6 said, "X happened," and Sandusky said, "X happened," is the real clincher. There is no disagreement. Victim 6's credibility really isn't an issue because Sandusky said that what he said was true.

Also, another thought about those papers from the real psychologist and the wanna be...their value to RG would also be in how HE considered and evaluated them in relation to the truth of the boy's account as evidence, no matter if they could actually be presented in court or not. I have a feeling he would have discounted the laughable 'coachly' opinion and would have thought more of what Dr. Chambers wrote and her opinion.

I did a blog on the weight and I doubt RFG would give either report very much weight.

In relation to that, do we have any records of how many child abuse cases RG had handled previously and how active he was generally in prosecuting them?

That I don't know. We do know that he assigned Arnold abuse cases, sometime in 1998. That is some of the reason that I find this so strange, the "go to" person in the office wasn't "gone to."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Trial postponed until June 5. The prosecution concurred on a sequestered jury.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/29/3144537/prosecutors-in-sandusky-case-have.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm posting this blog link to the blog only to look at how much weight RFG gave to psychology in his professional and personal lives:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/25/3140008/psychology.html

There is also the factor that Dr. Chambers' opinion was not admissible.

While this makes RFG look like he dropped the ball, big time, in this context, I don't find too strange.

 

[Pensfan]

The selected jurors should be sequestered? Who wants and can afford to be sequestered for 2-4 months for Jerry’s trial? (People who are living on their mental health disability check and the elderly?)

IMO, the hope for 12 high functioning jurors and some alternates has been flushed!
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/sandusky_charges_should_go_to.html

{Hey, JJ. Tell that blog reader that in PA, it is correctly pronounced gob snack and not gobsmacked. }
http://images.quickblogcast.com/1/3/3/0/1/118176-110331/gobs1_cropped2.JPG

 

[Pensfan]

In PA, first time child pervs can be sentenced to Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for a few months. The district attorney can move summary ARD consideration to the court of common pleas.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter3/chap3toc.html

In 2006, a prominent business man in one PA suburb outside Harrisburg fondled a preteen on numerous occasions and stalked her. He was given a short ARD and avoided a very public trial because it was his first offense. :furious:

 

[Tipstaff]

Judge delays Sandusky sex-abuse trial

The Associated Press

The judge overseeing former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child sexual abuse case on Thursday delayed the start of the trial by three weeks to early June, and prosecutors filed a lengthy court document that said the case should not be dismissed.

Judge John Cleland said the additional time was needed "to accommodate various logistical contingencies that have arisen," and the attorney general's office supported the postponement.

The prosecution's 21-page answer to a catch-all pretrial motion that Mr. Sandusky's lawyer submitted a week ago said the commonwealth had "broad latitude" to establish the dates of allegations in child sexual abuse cases. Mr. Sandusky has asked for more specifics about when the alleged crimes occurred.

"Defendant cannot exploit the appalling breadth of his own criminal conduct by claiming it encompasses so long a period as to hamper his defense," wrote chief deputy attorney general Frank Fina.

The 68-year-old retired defensive coordinator faces 52 counts involving 10 alleged victims over 15 years. He remains confined to his home to await trial. Prosecutors have accused him of engaging in a range of illegal behavior with the boys, including sexual assaults, allegations he denies.

Mr. Fina disputed Sandusky's argument that witness Mike McQueary will not be able to prove the charges involving a young boy allegedly seen by Mr. McQueary being sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky in the Penn State showers in 2002.

"The defense appears to argue that an eyewitness who sees an adult man having sex with a child cannot provide sufficient evidence of the conduct of crimes," Fina wrote. "It is noteworthy that the defense provides no legal support for such a specious assertion."

Judge Cleland said a hearing remains scheduled for April 5 in Bellefonte to argue over the pretrial issues.

Above is an AP story from this mornings Post-Gazette at www.post-gazette.com

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In PA, first time child pervs can be sentenced to Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for a few months. The district attorney can move summary ARD consideration to the court of common pleas.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter3/chap3toc.html

In 2006, a prominent business man in one PA suburb outside Harrisburg fondled a preteen on numerous occasions and stalked her. He was given a short ARD and avoided a very public trial because it was his first offense. :furious:

Something similar happened in Centre County; a township official charged and, on a plea he received ARD.

Also, even in cases of rape, the sentence can be light. One of the former priests in the Catholic Church sex scandal in Philadelphia plead guilty, and will be offering evidence against some higher up. He, I think got 2 1/2 - 5. I'm told that he'll be out within 20 months, with good behavior.

I would, however, think that in these cases the person might be either on the state registry, Megan's list, or both.

[Just a note: Last week, a British commentator on Fox used "gobsmacked." ]

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Please link to any document or official statement that the DA got both psychologists's reports. I missed that.

Both are in here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

Then at least it is clear, based on the fact that there was a requirement for a case to be founded, that itmwas not the DA's office (or RG) who did not have responsibility to get JSmon the registry. Lauro claims he didmnot have the psych reports and he was supposed to be working with the PSU investigators.

I think that there are a lot of questions around this. The police report does not indicate Laura had the Chambers report.

1. Chambers was one of the reporters, so why didn't Lauro ask her for anything relevant?

2. Schreffler had the report, but he didn't give it to Lauro. Why? Was there an ethical requirement to keep it confidential? Schreffler, probably didn't handle many (or any) child abuse cases, so I could understand why he might not be familiar with the process.

3. Gricar had the report, but he never gave it to Lauro. Again, why? Was there an ethical requirement to keep it confidential? If so, why not call Chambers and ask he to send a copy to Lauro, with the permission?

I can understand everyone thinking the other person did it, but why was there no followup, at least? Why didn't Lauro contact Chambers and why didn't either Schreffler or Gricar make sure Lauro had the report?

I would call this multiple failures of multiple individuals, at best.

 

[Reader]

I'm posting this blog link to the blog only to look at how much weight RFG gave to psychology in his professional and personal lives:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/25/3140008/psychology.html

There is also the factor that Dr. Chambers' opinion was not admissible.

While this makes RFG look like he dropped the ball, big time, in this context, I don't find too strange.

I can get to the blog from your links here but still not from the centredaily link. Guess I'll have to load up another browzer after all.

Anywho, that was interesting and explained his viewpoint well. I remember when Gricar first became 'missing' I did follow the case here and IS and there was info about how he might have had health problems and would not seek help. You got some good comments also.

About Lauro not getting the Chambers report from Scheffler or Gricar, makes me wonder if this was deliberate so he would just drop the case and not continue his own investigation, esp. in light of Scheffler saying 'there was nothing to it' when he of all people knew there was something to it from the admissions they had from JS himself, plus the 2 children.

I also wonder if B.K. would now be available since most troops are now back from Iraq, unless he is still overseas somewhere. Looks like they could get his testimony by video, in writing or something? Of course, he'd have to be available for cross examination during the trial but with a subpeona, he could possibly get leave for that if he's in the states.

 

[Reader]

The selected jurors should be sequestered? Who wants and can afford to be sequestered for 2-4 months for Jerry’s trial? (People who are living on their mental health disability check and the elderly?)

IMO, the hope for 12 high functioning jurors and some alternates has been flushed!
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/sandusky_charges_should_go_to.html

{Hey, JJ. Tell that blog reader that in PA, it is correctly pronounced gob snack and not gobsmacked. }
http://images.quickblogcast.com/1/3/3/0/1/118176-110331/gobs1_cropped2.JPG

Hey, Pensfan...just because we're retired doesn't mean we're all 'mental' or THAT elderly, LOL!

What about the unemployed in Pa.? There are probably a lot of those that would not mind serving and even being out of the house for a while.

Since it's summer a lot of teachers and adult students might be available also.

 

[Reader]

Judge delays Sandusky sex-abuse trial

The Associated Press

The judge overseeing former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child sexual abuse case on Thursday delayed the start of the trial by three weeks to early June, and prosecutors filed a lengthy court document that said the case should not be dismissed.

Judge John Cleland said the additional time was needed "to accommodate various logistical contingencies that have arisen," and the attorney general's office supported the postponement.

The prosecution's 21-page answer to a catch-all pretrial motion that Mr. Sandusky's lawyer submitted a week ago said the commonwealth had "broad latitude" to establish the dates of allegations in child sexual abuse cases. Mr. Sandusky has asked for more specifics about when the alleged crimes occurred.

"Defendant cannot exploit the appalling breadth of his own criminal conduct by claiming it encompasses so long a period as to hamper his defense," wrote chief deputy attorney general Frank Fina.

The 68-year-old retired defensive coordinator faces 52 counts involving 10 alleged victims over 15 years. He remains confined to his home to await trial. Prosecutors have accused him of engaging in a range of illegal behavior with the boys, including sexual assaults, allegations he denies.

Mr. Fina disputed Sandusky's argument that witness Mike McQueary will not be able to prove the charges involving a young boy allegedly seen by Mr. McQueary being sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky in the Penn State showers in 2002.

"The defense appears to argue that an eyewitness who sees an adult man having sex with a child cannot provide sufficient evidence of the conduct of crimes," Fina wrote. "It is noteworthy that the defense provides no legal support for such a specious assertion."

Judge Cleland said a hearing remains scheduled for April 5 in Bellefonte to argue over the pretrial issues.

Above is an AP story from this mornings Post-Gazette at www.post-gazette.com

BBM...love it that the prosecutors are letting JS and Amendola know their games are not gonna work with them because the law is on their side and the case and witnesses are strong. Sweat it, JS, your time is coming soon for the world to know just who you really are! And NOBODY is there to protect you anymore..who would really believe dear ol Dottie with her highly vested interest to lie?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Anywho, that was interesting and explained his viewpoint well. I remember when Gricar first became 'missing' I did follow the case here and IS and there was info about how he might have had health problems and would not seek help. You got some good comments also.

There were some things about RFG that when you first look at them, they look strange. His decision to retire at 60, and not practice law, for example. After talking to people who knew him, it really isn't too strange. He wanted to travel (and he may be doing just that). In that context, his retirement makes sense.

It's the same for how he'd view the Chambers' report. I can very easily see RFG looking at it and thinking that it's psychobabble (it isn't), along with being inadmissible. I can understand why this would have little weight with him.

About Lauro not getting the Chambers report from Scheffler or Gricar, makes me wonder if this was deliberate so he would just drop the case and not continue his own investigation, esp. in light of Scheffler saying 'there was nothing to it' when he of all people knew there was something to it from the admissions they had from JS himself, plus the 2 children.

Well, according to the statute, DPW/CYS have the responsibility of investigating, even if there is a criminal investigation. So basically, it Lauro's responsibility to gather the information for the registry determination.

The could have, however, been an honest mistake. Schreffler and Gricar could have assumed Lauro contacted Chambers, and didn't feel that they needed follow up. That would not have a focus of the criminal investigation.

That said, I was critical of Paterno for not doing followup with Curley and Schultz in 2002; my criticism was mild compared to others here. Apparently, RFG did not follow up with Lauro. This deserves stronger criticism because RFG had far more information than Paterno did, just in terms of the registry issue. Again, I would call this poor judgment, if it was nothing more.

I also wonder if B.K. would now be available since most troops are now back from Iraq, unless he is still overseas somewhere. Looks like they could get his testimony by video, in writing or something? Of course, he'd have to be available for cross examination during the trial but with a subpeona, he could possibly get leave for that if he's in the states.

He couldn't appear before the grand jury, but he could be a witness and would add a bit of corroboration to Victim 6, but I doubt it would be needed.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The AG cites 33 statements made by Curley and Schultz in the grand jury as perjury: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/30/3146296/ag-lists-alleged-perjury-by-curley.html