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

[pittsburghgirl]

We're back to the "witnesses" thing, as if the police officers listening in on a sting that produced no cofession to a crime are the same as witnesses to a crime and the in my opinion unbelievable assertion that the 1998 case is stronger than a rape case in 2002 where someone saw actual sexual assault on a child. The only reason anyone would make that argument is to pin the blame for Sandusky's later crimes on Ray Gricar, who is conveniently missing and cannot defend himself. If, as the feds seem to think, there was a coverup at Penn State, we will all find out that RG 's efforts were undermined by those who protected Sandusky from at least 1998 until the wheels fell off their wagon.

Let me also express my concern that regular posters shouldn't be telling other regular posters where to post. If pinktoes or anyone else can make a connection between Ray Gricar and this thread, that is what we are here for. In this case you looked like you were trying to shut pinktoes's line of thought down, which of course you would never do, being interested in the free exchange of ideas. We are all still at the beginning of a compicated puzzle.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Since this has nothing to do with Sandusky, please take it to the Gricar thread.

Sorry. Will do. (I'm not yet convinced Gricar's disappearance, and all chatter around it is totally unrelated to Sandusky and/or other Sandusky-related criminals.)

The JKA connection is coming around again as the trial approaches and we may get to see why she was critical of the GJ process, why she disagreed with RG and what light that sheds on why Sandusky has been allowed to continue his terrible practices for so long.

I don't think clarifying any poster's relationship to people actually involved in the Sandusky case is inappropriate or doesn't belong on this thread. For my part: I have no relationship to anyone in the case. I never went to Penn State or lived in Centre County or knew RG or anyone in his family or in the DA's office. Just a WS poster with an interest in what happened to a public servant in my own state.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If he really wanted to stop a predator from taking little boys into the shower he would have done it but he was happy to just drop it. Let it go.

Good lord, he set up the sting, compiled a 90+ page report, and took it to the DA's Office in 1998. The DA didn't prosecute. The AG is using the report to prosecute now.

Sorry, but it is unrealistic to expect Schreffler to do more. He can't prosecute the case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The JKA connection is coming around again as the trial approaches and we may get to see why she was critical of the GJ process, why she disagreed with RG and what light that sheds on why Sandusky has been allowed to continue his terrible practices for so long.

I don't think clarifying any poster's relationship to people actually involved in the Sandusky case is inappropriate or doesn't belong on this thread. For my part: I have no relationship to anyone in the case. I never went to Penn State or lived in Centre County or knew RG or anyone in his family or in the DA's office. Just a WS poster with an interest in what happened to a public servant in my own state.

I think Pinktoes question has nothing to do with Sandusky, but if she wants to discuss it, it should be in the context that JKA referred to it and that I referred to it. That contexty is solely the Gricar case and those comments from JKA were made before Sandusky was even being investigated.

Now, he comments about the grand jury, or her recent comments about the Sandusky case, or my recent comments in that regard are fair game. My comments are completely positive to JKA, though I agree that we need more information.

 

[pinktoes]

pittsburghgirl: I understand your rationale about JJ's position wrt the relative strengths of the 1998 vs 2002 incidents. And, thanks for giving me a bit of clarity on that.

For me, there's, perhaps, a bit more there. And JJ, unlike Gricar, IS here to present his own position. Here's the more part: in reading widely JJ's posts back over the last few years, before Sandusky ever was known about to the public, it often went thru my head, "JJ, why do you dislike Gricar so much?" Other posters raised similar issues. To many of us, that dislike is almost tangible, and words cannot deny it. So, I still wonder "why?" It seems personal to me, and I say that as someone who knows none of the cast of characters and lives out of state.

So, my further qualification of what you so nicely pulled together is that while JJ (or anyone else) might want to blame Gricar now for Sandusky's post 1998 rampage, JJ himself seems to have had something against Gricar before this became public. That could have to do with Sandusky--unbeknownst to us. Or not. For example, although I wouldn't know all the places to look for a police/arrest report on Sandusky, JJ might.

JJ can clarify if he hasn't lost patience with me by now. It's all very confusing and mystifying to me. And I'd like to learn more.

 

[Rlaub44]

Thanks...since that link goes to the comments, here is the link to the article:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/former_fbi_director_focuses_pe.html

Some quotes:




How conveeeenient....

Thank you for fixing my link.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about the Paterno family's voluntary cooperation being "how conveeeeenient....". If they weren't cooperating, people would be clamoring that they were trying to hide something. Since they are fully cooperating, without "lawyering up" and waiting for a subpoena like the remainder of the case players, I would have thought that would have pleased Paterno's critics.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

pittsburghgirl: I understand your rationale about JJ's position wrt the relative strengths of the 1998 vs 2002 incidents. And, thanks for giving me a bit of clarity on that.

For me, there's, perhaps, a bit more there. And JJ, unlike Gricar, IS here to present his own position. Here's the more part: in reading widely JJ's posts back over the last few years, before Sandusky ever was known about to the public, it often went thru my head, "JJ, why do you dislike Gricar so much?" Other posters raised similar issues. To many of us, that dislike is almost tangible, and words cannot deny it. So, I still wonder "why?" It seems personal to me, and I say that as someone who knows none of the cast of characters and lives out of state.

People interpret dislike as, I don't agree with their theory. Some people also don't like the possibility that he walked away. That is the prevalent theory.

I do certainly think he was wrong not to prosecute the case in 1998.

So, my further qualification of what you so nicely pulled together is that while JJ (or anyone else) might want to blame Gricar now for Sandusky's post 1998 rampage, JJ himself seems to have had something against Gricar before this became public. That could have to do with Sandusky--unbeknownst to us. Or not. For example, although I wouldn't know all the places to look for a police/arrest report on Sandusky, JJ might.

:what:

Since their wasn't an investigation of Sandusky when I started posting on the Gricar case, the answer is "or not." For example, JKA's comments that you recently quoted were made in July 2007. Madeira turned the case over in Jan-March of 2009.

JJ can clarify if he hasn't lost patience with me by now. It's all very confusing and mystifying to me. And I'd like to learn more.

Since this is the Sandusky thread, the only relevant part of your comments relate to RFG decision not to prosecute the case in 1998.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Good lord, he [Schreffler] set up the sting, compiled a 90+ page report, and took it to the DA's Office in 1998. The DA didn't prosecute. The AG is using the report to prosecute now.

Sorry, but it is unrealistic to expect Schreffler to do more. He can't prosecute the case.

Not according to PennLive:

The travesty and tragedy of botched attempts to investigate Jerry Sandusky began in 1998.

Though the grand jury indictment includes four previous victims, an 11-year old boy in 1998 was the first to come forward. He is called Victim Six in the grand jury presentment.

The boy told police that Sandusky had showered naked with him. A second boy was in the showers at the time, but did not testify before the grand jury.

Then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar set up a sting in the mother’s home. Sandusky had requested to meet with the mom, and Gricar had officers hide in another room and listen to their conversation.

One of those officers was Detective Ron Schreffler, the lead investigator in the case. [Emphasis added]

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html

New York Times:

Ray Gricar set up a sting for Sandusky at the 11-year-old's house, hiding officers in another room to eavesdrop as the boy's mom confronted Sandusky. According to court files, Sandusky asked the mother for forgiveness, saying: "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness from you. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."
Police eventually interviewed Sandusky, who admitted to hugging the boy while naked in the shower.
Ray Gricar didn't press charges. He didn't explain why, because in 1998 the media didn't know about that investigation.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/pennsylvania_state_university/index.html

I did re-visit the GJ presentment, which simply says that Schreffler and another officer were present during the sting and Gricar did not prosecute. And of course, RG is conveniently not around to clarify his role.

And as to the relative wonderfulness of 1998 vs. 2002, revisit CBS in New York, discussing the 2008 case:

The Clinton County teenager — Victim 1, as he would become known in the grand jury report made public in November 2011 — alleged that he first met Sandusky through the Second Mile when he was 11 or 12. Sandusky had indecently fondled him and performed oral sex on him, the boy said.
But prosecutors, lacking physical evidence of an assault, worried about the fortunes of a case that might end up with little more than competing claims — by the boy and by Sandusky. To make a charge stick, they concluded, they needed to explore whether one boy’s claims were merely one among others, perhaps many.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/kallas-analyzing-the-joe-paterno-interview/

Here, with a 2008 victim who was able to say he was indecently fondled and JS had "performed oral sex on him"; but without physical evidence they were worried that the "case that might end up with little more than competing claims — by the boy and by Sandusky." Which is a lot more than RG had with showering and hugging and a kid with wet hair. And NO WITNESSES as in 2000 and 2002.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Pinktoes, I've rather specifically said that you can't blame Gricar for these other incidence, because, as far as we know, Gricar didn't know about them. There was never an investigation for any of these other cases, and many of them, including 1998, are weak.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

pinktoes, I share your puzzlement about JJ's position regarding Ray Gricar, although I have not searched any further than what we have here on WS and JKA's "tome," which is a good word for that document. The efforts made to argue that RG is a walkaway requires a good bit of character assassination, in my view, because for someone to walk away and leave family and colleagues with a horrendous search and years of uncertainty indicates poor character at best. So while I disagree with JJ about "walkaway," I also notice what he needs to say about RG to make that argument stick. I am more in JKA's camp, that RG was pretty much a by-the-book kind of guy.

However, the need to argue that RG's decision not to prosecute in 1998 was not based on the weaknesses or merits of the case, but rather some unnamed motivation is where I make my stand. Objective investigators in the current case told the NY Times (links posted on the Gricar case) that whether or not to prosecute in 1998 was a close call. There is always in such cases the question of how well the victim will hold up through police interviews, community reactions and the hoopla of a major trial--because a PSU football coach being tried for child sexual abuse, even at the "hugging" and showering level, would have been huge news in 1998, when Sandusky was a hero.

And as you see in the link I posted above, current prosecutors NOW felt the need to make a case with multiple victims who can testify--even with a living eyewitness to rape (McQueary), a record of a 2000 eyewitness to oral rape who cannot testify (the janitor), and Schreffler's account of the 1998 sting. So there are many neutral sources that don't jump to any conclusions about Gricar in regard to 1998. We still don't know. The trial is sure to bring out more because everyone has to testify under oath. (Not to say that people can't lie, but they can be impeached based on other witnesses, GJ testimony, police statements, etc.)

That is not to say that the question of why RG didn't prosecute doesn't interest me or that I think he made the right call. We can certainly see that even just bringing charges might have made it harder for JS to continue his actions in Centre Co. But all that would have meant was that he would start up somewhere else once his ARD was over. Because without rape or physical evidence, that was the very best RG could have got in 1998, a guilty verdict or plea to some low-level offense like "corrupting the morals" followed by ARD and expungement. But for me, the insistence on the 1998 case as the best one is a clear anti-Gricar position. There's no reason to make that argument unless it is to vilify RG.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not according to PennLive:

Yes according to Post Gazette:

Retired University Park Detective Ronald Schreffler believed he had enough evidence in 1998 to charge then-Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky with something after the man admitted to a boy's mother to showering naked with her son.

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday, the day after Mr. Sandusky chose to waive his preliminary hearing on 52 counts that accuse him of molesting 10 boys over the last several years.


Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1pVTgJCSh

Now, let's be blunt about two several things:

1. Schreffler didn't speak until after the preliminary hearing, so he didn't provide any information to the earlier articles.

2. That has been posted, first by another poster, and you have read it and referred to it.

3. Schreffler has a good reputation as a police officer. JKA posted, prior to this coming out, called him, "a truly top-notch investigator." His report was considered outstanding by the current investigators. I, from what I can tell, agree with these assessments.

1998 was not a rape case, but the charges are serious and include 4 felonies. If Sandusky is convicted on at least one felony, he will be placed on Megan's List, and would have been at the time. It is the one where Sandusky admitted to his action, in front of witnesses.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That is not to say that the question of why RG didn't prosecute doesn't interest me or that I think he made the right call. We can certainly see that even just bringing charges might have made it harder for JS to continue his actions in Centre Co. But all that would have meant was that he would start up somewhere else once his ARD was over. Because without rape or physical evidence, that was the very best RG could have got in 1998, a guilty verdict or plea to some low-level offense like "corrupting the morals" followed by ARD and expungement. But for me, the insistence on the 1998 case as the best one is a clear anti-Gricar position.

As I just noted, there are four felonies in the 1998 incident (Victim 6) and, IIRC, conviction on any of them would land Sandusky on Megan's list, and I believe would have in 1998.

Now, if you want to claim that it is okay to let someone inappropriately touching a child to walk around until he does something worse, be my guest. That is, however, what you are claiming.

 

[Concerned Papa]

JJ: JKA believes you said more. And I believe I read it independently of her tome as well. Anyhow, this is what I'm referencing (and is my belief this is why she retaliated. And this is what I mean by you "going after her")

" Reading through several subsequent JJ addenda to his "Murder" thread, I found two such references. The first, posted October 11, 2006, notes that K (killer) would 'need access to Arnold's records'. The second, posted October 12, 2006, states as follows: "K [killer] says at this point 'I'm worried about my job'. Was it Arnold that was fired at the change of administrations at the DA's office?""

from:
http://sites.google.com/site/gricardisappearance/partiii:onlinediscussion

pinktoes, I'm trying to understand a little about your post and link.

-Who is JKA and what is this link?

-I read through it, and it appears to be someone's analysis of posters on a forum?

-Is the author part of the prosecutor's office?

Thanks for any explanation you could offer.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

pinktoes, I'm trying to understand a little about your post and link.

-Who is JKA and what is this link?

-I read through it, and it appears to be someone's analysis of posters on a forum?

-Is the author part of the prosecutor's office?

Thanks for any explanation you could offer.

Karen Arnold was an ADA from 1988-2005, who, starting at some point in 1998, handled all the child abuse cases. She ran for DA in 2005, losing to Madeira, losing about 43% to 54% (there was an undervote).

When Madeira was sworn in, he did not renew her position.

She posted Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury in July of 2007, which had the unintended effect of making me prominent in the Gricar case (people now sometimes return my e-mails). It is a fairly good source of background information, and I do cite it.

She ran again in 2009 and got less than 20% in a three way primary; Parks Miller got in excess of 50% of the vote. In the general, she endorsed Madeira, who lost 35% to 64%.

She was called before the grand jury, possibly in March of 2011, relating to the 1998 incident. She did not handle it, but in filings there was an indication that JKA had "extensive disagreements" in 1998 over how RFG handled the case. The blog I just cited gives that information in greater detail.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Yes according to Post Gazette:

Retired University Park Detective Ronald Schreffler believed he had enough evidence in 1998 to charge then-Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky with something after the man admitted to a boy's mother to showering naked with her son.

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday, the day after Mr. Sandusky chose to waive his preliminary hearing on 52 counts that accuse him of molesting 10 boys over the last several years.


Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm#ixzz1pVTgJCSh

Now, let's be blunt about two several things:

1. Schreffler didn't speak until after the preliminary hearing, so he didn't provide any information to the earlier articles.

2. That has been posted, first by another poster, and you have read it and referred to it.

3. Schreffler has a good reputation as a police officer. JKA posted, prior to this coming out, called him, "a truly top-notch investigator." His report was considered outstanding by the current investigators. I, from what I can tell, agree with these assessments.

1998 was not a rape case, but the charges are serious and include 4 felonies. If Sandusky is convicted on at least one felony, he will be placed on Megan's List, and would have been at the time. It is the one where Sandusky admitted to his action, in front of witnesses.

I don't know what you mean by "That" has been posted. Have I read the article? Yes. What you have above does not state that Schreffler set up the sting. For those who are interested, then, you need to read the whole article. In it, Schreffler takes 100% of the credit and the whole piece is told from his point of view. Now, that could be the result of poor reporting or just the natural tendency people have to take full credit for whatever happens. But at best, we have two very reliable sources saying something different. And, as always, RG is conveniently not here to tell things from his perspective.

Charges are one thing. Police officers always want charges. Prosecutors want convictions. Hence, disagreement.

I have no reason to think anything negative of Officer Schreffler. It does seem, however, that there must be people involved with the case who see RG as being the initiator of the sting, people sufficiently knowledgeable for the Patriot-News and NY Times to accept their version. And no one in 2011 has any reason to give RG credit for anything, as he (like Paterno, at this point) is not here to defend himself. It seems likely to me that both RG and Schreffler were trying to nail Sandusky RG decided not to press charges.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

As I just noted, there are four felonies in the 1998 incident (Victim 6) and, IIRC, conviction on any of them would land Sandusky on Megan's list, and I believe would have in 1998.

Now, if you want to claim that it is okay to let someone inappropriately touching a child to walk around until he does something worse, be my guest. That is, however, what you are claiming.

No. I am not. I am arguing, as you know, about a legal process, not morality or street justice. Just as I don't "claim" it's all right for suspected murderers to walk around, e.g., Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson, when prosecutions fail. But when a prosecutor brings charges and prosecutes, as I have said to you before, he or she had better get a conviction or that case is gone forever and the guilty walk. In this country, we don't put people in prison just because we suspect them of being pedophiles or murderers or thieves--at least, that is supposed to be the case. There is a process by which guilt is determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that Jerry Sandusky and a high-price defense attorney would have trouble taking apart a young boy on the stand? Eh? How many parents quit on prosecutions because their kids are taunted by others in the community because they must publicly talk about sexual touching and the like? And of course we have yet to learn whether PSU or some other entity covered up the case in 1998 in some way. That's what the feds are looking at.

Now, once there were eyewitnesses to RAPE--now in 2000 and 2002 Schreffler or whoever would have had lots to work with, including a pattern that spanned 4 years and a shot at getting warrants to look at Second Mile. But then--no one reported that. And child rape? Sandusky spends the rest of his life in prison, if all goes well in court.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't know what you mean by "That" has been posted. Have I read the article? Yes. What you have above does not state that Schreffler set up the sting. For those who are interested, then, you need to read the whole article. In it, Schreffler takes 100% of the credit and the whole piece is told from his point of view. Now, that could be the result of poor reporting or just the natural tendency people have to take full credit for whatever happens. But at best, we have two very reliable sources saying something different. And, as always, RG is conveniently not here to tell things from his perspective.

The article and the link. We have no reliable sources saying anything different. We have the investigator, widely praised, the various references to his report. We have an early report where some of thios information is unavailbe.

Are you suggesting that Schreffler isn't honest? Remember, he will be a key witness against Sandusky.

Charges are one thing. Police officers always want charges. Prosecutors want convictions. Hence, disagreement.

No disagreement from the AG; they charged on the same incident with less evidence.

Perhaps the question should be why RFG didn't prosecute in this circumstance?

I have no reason to think anything negative of Officer Schreffler. It does seem, however, that there must be people involved with the case who see RG as being the initiator of the sting, people sufficiently knowledgeable for the Patriot-News and NY Times to accept their version. And no one in 2011 has any reason to give RG credit for anything, as he (like Paterno, at this point) is not here to defend himself. It seems likely to me that both RG and Schreffler were trying to nail Sandusky RG decided not to press charges.

Actually, no one from the NYT story was the actual investigator. Then we have JKA's "disagreements."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No. I am not. I am arguing, as you know, about a legal process, not morality or street justice. Just as I don't "claim" it's all right for suspected murderers to walk around, e.g., Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson, when prosecutions fail.

You just cited two cases where a prosecutor tried. I wouldn't be critical of RFG if he tried. Keep in mind that a County DA may get a grand jury empanneled to further investigate. RFG didn't try that either.

Now, once there were eyewitnesses to RAPE--now in 2000 and 2002 Schreffler or whoever would have had lots to work with, including a pattern that spanned 4 years and a shot at getting warrants to look at Second Mile. But then--no one reported that. And child rape? Sandusky spends the rest of his life in prison, if all goes well in court.

I don't care how much or how little time Sandusky gets, so long as he can't be around children. That protects children (though jail is the best way to guarantee that).

When you talk about the long jail sentence, you miss the point that had Sandusky been prosecuted in 1998-2002, and convicted, he would not be able to be around children. Second Mile would never, after that, let him be around children, for liability purposes.

Prosecuting Sandusky then would have taken away the opportunity for him to do anything in the future. It might have even been possible for him to get psychological help.

 

[Reader]

Thank you for fixing my link.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about the Paterno family's voluntary cooperation being "how conveeeeenient....". If they weren't cooperating, people would be clamoring that they were trying to hide something. Since they are fully cooperating, without "lawyering up" and waiting for a subpoena like the remainder of the case players, I would have thought that would have pleased Paterno's critics.

I say that because without a subpeona there is no oversight in the process of the family handing over materials requested. They could say 'such n such' doesn't exist or they can't find it and no one is the wiser. I have nothing against the family but I think their front-end cooperating could be a way to control these materials and conceal anything they think would bring harm to Paterno's legacy and reputation. IMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thank you for fixing my link.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about the Paterno family's voluntary cooperation being "how conveeeeenient....". If they weren't cooperating, people would be clamoring that they were trying to hide something. Since they are fully cooperating, without "lawyering up" and waiting for a subpoena like the remainder of the case players, I would have thought that would have pleased Paterno's critics.

I think, from a public relations standpoint, you are absolutely correct.