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

[StellarsJay]

Came across this while looking up John Seasock, the psychologist who assessed victim 6- I hoped to find a link to Second Mile.
Did find Amandola's complete list of demands- 46 pages.
http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The prosecutors were ordered to turn over some of the documents to Amendola.http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/20/3133421/judge-in-jerry-sandusky-case-orders.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Apparently, Dr. Seacock was not the only psychologist. The mother of Victim 6 brought one in.

“And that psychologist concluded that this incident, what the boy described, and I’m paraphrasing ... the psychologist concluded that what the boy described was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” the source said.

Amedola may be making the <modsnip> argument:

&#8220;We&#8217;re going to argue that it was investigated by Gricar, a seasoned, nonpolitical, professional prosecutor, and the jury can take it from there,&#8221; Amendola said. &#8220;No. 6 defies explanation why they are pursuing it, and I think the mother has something to do with that.&#8221;

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

I would say to Mr. Amendola, <modsnip>, I will be the first to say that in looking at the record of RFG, and someone who does not have a tie to him, he was a hard hitting prosecutor who often personally prosecuted difficult cases. He wasn't one in the case of Victim 6.

 

[Reader]

Apparently, Dr. Seacock was not the only psychologist. The mother of Victim 6 brought one in.

&#8220;And that psychologist concluded that this incident, what the boy described, and I&#8217;m paraphrasing ... the psychologist concluded that what the boy described was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,&#8221; the source said.

Amedola may be making the <modsnip> argument:

&#8220;We&#8217;re going to argue that it was investigated by Gricar, a seasoned, nonpolitical, professional prosecutor, and the jury can take it from there,&#8221; Amendola said. &#8220;No. 6 defies explanation why they are pursuing it, and I think the mother has something to do with that.&#8221;

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

I would say to Mr. Amendola,<modsnip>, I will be the first to say that in looking at the record of RFG, and someone who does not have a tie to him, he was a hard hitting prosecutor who often personally prosecuted difficult cases. He wasn't one in the case of Victim 6.

It is puzzling why this case was handled differently by Gricar, BUT nevertheless, I hope this prosecutor does not let Amendola's bluff on the case influence him. It was definitely lewd/grooming behavior and should be prosecuted. It does not matter if it was seen or not, it happened to the child and was sexual abuse IMO. Sexual abuse does not have to be rape, it also includes molestation or unwanted touching. We have such cases charged and prosecuted every day...just check out this entire forum for children's cases. Of course the mother is pursuing it...it affected her child all these years in a negative and emotional manner. This child was traumatized by JS's acts with him and should have his justice too!

 

[Reader]

200 interviewed in Penn State investigation

http://www.centurylink.net/news/rea...ass&action=3&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_SHNWU00L3_UNEWS

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) — Former FBI chief Louis Freeh and his investigators have conducted 200 interviews in their extensive probe of the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State, asking questions that go beyond the charges against retired assistant coach Jerry Sandusky and into the relationship between the football program and the administration.

Since November, when the Penn State Board of Trustees hired his group to examine the Sandusky case, Freeh's team has talked to people ranging from high-level administrators to retired secretaries to current and former staffers in the athletic department. That includes many employees who worked at the football building while the late Joe Paterno was coach.

The trustees themselves also are among those to be questioned, said board chairwoman Karen Peetz, who told The Associated Press 200 people have been interviewed in all.

As Freeh seeks to fulfill his mission — he is charged with finding out how Penn State failed to stop an alleged predator in its midst, and with recommending changes aimed at preventing abuse — board members facing criticism are stressing anew that the former federal judge and his team have complete independence. They see the breadth of his investigation as a sign of that.

"They're extremely reputable, impeccable credentials, a mandate to investigate thoroughly," trustee Joel Myers said after a board meeting last week in Hershey. "Let the chips fall where they may so we come out of this a better institution."
------

Trustee Keith Eckel, who was interviewed for two hours last week, said investigators were thorough.

"My interview started when I was born and went through to now. I'm serious," Eckel said. "It covered a lot of ground."
------

Tomalis also suggested that Freeh is in contact with other investigatory bodies. There are ongoing state, federal and NCAA probes into Sandusky and Penn State's handling of the sex abuse allegations, and Freeh's law enforcement background is "one of the reasons why we chose (him) in the first place, because he has that ability to communicate and interact with the other investigatory agencies," said Tomalis, Pennsylvania's education secretary.
------

"I have no doubt based on my conversations with 22 trustees that the decision to fire Joe was not based on the Sandusky matter," prominent donor Anthony Lubrano, who is running for a seat on the board, wrote in an email. "Rather, for almost eight years the trustees wanted him removed (but) didn't know how to do so without suffering the ire of the alumni."

More at link....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It is puzzling why this case was handled differently by Gricar, BUT nevertheless, I hope this prosecutor does not let Amendola's bluff on the case influence him. It was definitely lewd/grooming behavior and should be prosecuted. It does not matter if it was seen or not, it happened to the child and was sexual abuse IMO. Sexual abuse does not have to be rape, it also includes molestation or unwanted touching. We have such cases charged and prosecuted every day...just check out this entire forum for children's cases. Of course the mother is pursuing it...it affected her child all these years in a negative and emotional manner. This child was traumatized by JS's acts with him and should have his justice too!

They won't. Grooming itself is not a crime (I didn't say I approved, but it is not illegal). It is considered "open lewdness" if the victim sees it.

When this story broke, I started reading the case law on open lewdness. It can include a number of things. If the person does something where it can be seen, "amusing yourself" in his car, he can be charged with it. If he is covered with something and "looks" like he's "amusing himself," he can be convicted of it. If she is streaking, she can be charged with it.

There are exceptions, like if the people around expect it and okay with it, but a child can't give that consent. Even if someone was, er, "amused himself," in his own home in front of a child, he can be charge with it, even if the child in no way excited him.

It's basically a law saying you shouldn't do certain things except in private and between consenting adults. I kind of think bear hugging a child in the shower from behind, while both of parties are naked, probably falls under that definition.

 

[StellarsJay]

I'm still wondering what the Second Mile actually did for youth.
Sounds like Big Brothers/Sisters may absorb the Center County work:

"We have looked closely at what services The Second Mile (has) provided here in Centre County," said Andrea Boyles, the bureau CEO. She said those services fall largely into three categories: a Friend Fitness mentoring program, a separate activity program called Friend, and a summer camp.

Friend Fitness, through which young people develop exercise habits with the help of mentors, counts 27 youth participants in Centre County.

"We would welcome those kids and their volunteers into Big Brothers Big Sisters (of Centre County)" if they so desire, Boyles said. She said the Youth Service Bureau's existing staff could handle the added workload. (Big Brothers Big Sisters, she noted, always needs more volunteer mentors.)

The Friend program, for its part, enables youth participants to meet for monthly activities with Penn State students. It's not immediately clear how many Centre County residents take part, but the Youth Service Bureau thinks it can absorb the program locally without overburdening its infrastructure, Boyles said.

Separately, the Second Mile summer-camp program enrolled nearly 50 county residents last year. Maintaining it would be a greater challenge for the Youth Service Bureau, Boyles said.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...in-second-mile-services-in-centre-co-1030223/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Apparently, the psychologist report and determination that there was no child abuse is not admissible in court and, as such, should not really have affected the case:

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/sto...-in-Sandusky-case/Qb3xs9oz30qCSZi4rusrog.cspx

So we seem to have one report saying Sandusky didn't sexually abuse Victim 6. But:

A. Sandusky isn't actually charged with sexually of abuse Victim 6.

B. There may be another report saying Sandusky was trying to groom Victim 6.

C. Neither report is admissible.

 

[Concerned Papa]

200 interviewed in Penn State investigation

http://www.centurylink.net/news/rea...ass&action=3&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_SHNWU00L3_UNEWS

More at link....

From the link above:

Freeh's team has talked to people ranging from high-level administrators to retired secretaries to current and former staffers in the athletic department. That includes many employees who worked at the football building while the late Joe Paterno was coach

Linda Woodring, a retired personnel specialist in the athletic department, said she spent "a couple hours" at Freeh's State College office. She declined to reveal what she told them, saying "they asked that it remain confidential," but that the questions focused on her job. Woodring worked at Penn State for more than 40 years and processed Sandusky's retirement.

I'm glad to see this. It's my opinion that you'll get a lot closer to the truth in this case from secretaries, janitors, hotel maids, cab drivers, waiters, and desk clerks than you ever will from the cya schuck and jive rhetoric we've been hearing from university presidents, athletic directors, charity bigwigs, lawyers, and Governors.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Amendola is moving to dismiss.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION.pdf.pdf

95 pages.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Apparently, the psychologist report and determination that there was no child abuse is not admissible in court and, as such, should not really have affected the case:

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/sto...-in-Sandusky-case/Qb3xs9oz30qCSZi4rusrog.cspx

So we seem to have one report saying Sandusky didn't sexually abuse Victim 6. But:

A. Sandusky isn't actually charged with sexually of abuse Victim 6.

B. There may be another report saying Sandusky was trying to groom Victim 6.

C. Neither report is admissible.

We definitely have two reports, according to Ganim, and based on an interview with someone who has read the whole police file. One was from a psychologist called in by the mother at the time the child reported the "shower" incident and who continued to see the child, who concluded that what happened to Victim 6 was consistent with what we have called here "grooming." The other concluded that &#8220;Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky." That is Seasock. His report came in two days before the case was closed.

Now, it doesn't seem surprising to me that two psychologists might disagree about any case, so I am not going to hop to a conclusion about that. And it doesn't seem surprising that Schreffler or his superiors would want a "second opinion" and not just rely on a psychologist chosen and hired by the parent. IMHO, we don't yet have enough evidence to know why the second psychologist was hired or how he was chosen. We do know that the DPW investigator Lauro did not know there were any psych reports, so he certainly did not choose or recommend him. And the investigative phase was in the hands of the PSU police and not the DA's office, so it was almost certainly not RG's choice of psychologists.

The TV news story JJ cites indicates that psychologists can't testify to their opinions about whether abuse occured, but they can testify about things they were told by others, if the judge decides to admit the testimony.

That is one thing to remember: what is admissible in court is determined in pre-trial motions and hearings, etc., and is ruled on by a judge who knows both the "letter of the law" and the case precedents. So we all must wait and see. I surely hope both get to testify to at least clear up who hired Seasock, etc. And of course Amendola will file motions to dismiss at every turn. He is trying to get his client's case kicked from court. All defense attorneys do this; it seldom works, but it does force prosecutors to show their hand as to the kinds of arguments that will be made.

Both of these articles, yesterday and today, are well worth reading in full. We can only quote 10%, and it is impossible to get the full idea without reading them both. I will post a few selections below.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

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

 

[pittsburghgirl]

From http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/patriot-news_exclusive_psychol.html

What wasn’t made public until now was that two days before Gricar closed the case, a psychologist concluded Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky.

This timing is very interesting, and as the article speculates, may explain why RG decided not to prosecute. (But as we know, he is not here to confirm that speculation.)

The article also reminds us that the investigation was done by Penn State police, and not Gricar, who would have depended on the contents of the investigation when he made a decision about whether to bring charges:

The source reviewed the entire police report from 1998. The investigation, which was done by Penn State University police, took a few weeks. It included a sting in which police set up a meeting between the boy’s mother and Sandusky as officers hid in another room.

[Emphasis added]

From http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state.html
Jerry Lauro, the DPW investigator, did not know about either report:

Penn State “Detective [Ron] Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” Lauro said, referring to reports from psychologist John Seasock and a female psychologist. Seasock concluded that the boy was not sexually abused two days before the case was closed. The report of the female psychologist who evaluated the boy right after the incident found Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming a victim for sexual abuse. [Snipped to stay within TOS guidelines]

“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room,” Lauro said last year. “He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.’ “

All of this raises questions about what RG was told by investigators--and in fact whether the PSU "investigation" was part of a cover-up. Certainly the fact that Lauro was not told, if he is reporting his interaction with Schreffler accurately, does not indicate good faith, as these cases are customarily pursued both by child welfare agencies, usually CYS in Pennsylvania but in this case the state DPW and the police and PSU should have shared these reports.

 

[Tipstaff]

Lawyer for Sandusky asks that charges be dropped
March 22, 2012 4:30 pm


By Paula Reed Ward / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


An attorney for former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky today filed a motion asking that all of the charges against his client be dismissed.

Joe Amendola wrote in his 31-page motion that many of the charges against his client lack specificity to such a degree that he "cannot adequately prepare a defense to those charges." In the other counts, Mr. Amendola wrote, there is a lack of sufficient evidence to support criminal charges.

The defense previously requested a bill of particulars from the state attorney general's office, seeking greater detail of the individual charges against Mr. Sandusky.

In its response, the prosecution has said it provided what it could, and that some details were missing because of the age of the alleged victims at the time and because of the length of time since the incidents.

Without more detailed information about dates, times and locations, Mr. Amendola said, the commonwealth is treating Mr. Sandusky unfairly.

Referring to Victim No. 2, the boy Mr. Sandusky is accused of sexually abusing in a football locker room shower, Mr. Amendola argues that the commonwealth has acknowledged that the victim is unknown and still unidentified, and so "the Commonwealth cannot sustain these charges at trial simply based upon the testimony of [former Penn State graduate assistant] Michael McQueary."

The wide-ranging pretrial motion also includes claims that many of the counts against Mr. Sandusky are improper because the statute of limitations on them has run.


Link to this article is at www.post-gazette.com

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We definitely have two reports, according to Ganim, and based on an interview with someone who has read the whole police file. One was from a psychologist called in by the mother at the time the child reported the "shower" incident and who continued to see the child, who concluded that what happened to Victim 6 was consistent with what we have called here "grooming." The other concluded that “Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky." That is Seasock. His report came in two days before the case was closed.

There is some question if Seasock had his Ph D at the time. A 2003 list of his credentials does not list it. http://www.childwelfare.gov/calendar/cbconference/fourteenth/presentations/112.cfm He was listed as a licensed professional counselor. There was also some question on if he ever interviewed Victim 6.

The one hired by Victim 6's mother was the one dealing with "grooming." As I indicated previously, "grooming" is not, in itself, illegal. It might be an indication that there should be a greater investigation.

Lauro indicated that never saw either report. He said that it would have changed his decision.

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

Keep in mind that Lauro did not make the decision on if to prosecute. Also keep in mind that Sandusky is not charged with sexual abuse in the 1998 incident, so a finding that he did not commit "sexual abuse" is pretty meaningless.

 

[pinktoes]

I have read that Gricar and Sandusky share a mutual acquaintance who might be of some interest in how the 2 cases are related. This is someone in the Raystown Lake/7 Point Marina/Huntingdon/Juniata College local. Most likely the Lake and/or Marina.

Anyone know who that might be?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

All of this raises questions about what RG was told by investigators--and in fact whether the PSU "investigation" was part of a cover-up. Certainly the fact that Lauro was not told, if he is reporting his interaction with Schreffler accurately, does not indicate good faith, as these cases are customarily pursued both by child welfare agencies, usually CYS in Pennsylvania but in this case the state DPW and the police and PSU should have shared these reports.

The report from Seasock seems to have given to the DA. The other may have been, since it was commissioned by the victim's mother. The mother seems to have been on the ball.

And, as noted, the conclusions are not admissible.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

The report from Seasock seems to have given to the DA. The other may have been, since it was commissioned by the victim's mother. The mother seems to have been on the ball.

And, as noted, the conclusions are not admissible.

What source is there for the notion that either report went to RG since Lauro was advised of neither?

The mother surely did a great job, first in contacting police and again in securing a psychologist. But how likely is it that she would have given a report to RG, since the investigation was being conducted by PSU police? I would think was PSU police who would have told RG. But if they didn't tell Lauro, when the child protection investigators usually work with police, it is possible they didn't give those to RG. I hope that as the case moves forward there will be more information about the process, although without RG to speak on his own behalf, for his own actions, we can't know for sure what he knew.

The psychologists' reports are very important in sex abuse cases, regardless of what various states' rules of evidence allow for in court. One major question for investigators is always the credibility of the victim. Remember that a child alleging improper sexual contact or sex abuse or some related inappropriate action will have to restify in court or in some place on videotape and will be subject to cross-examination. Law enforcement officers may not be highly experienced or even trained to interview children, and do so in such a way so as to draw out what happened when kids may not have the vocabulary or concepts. In a rape case involving an adult, there is often physical evidence taken by both law enforcement and medical professionals; in the case of children, physical evidence is often long gone and the case will be based on the children's testimony, other witnesses and circumstantial evidence, e.g., phone calls and the like. A psychologist can help investigators by affirming (or not) that the child's account is consistent with abuse and whether the child is likely to be able to testify effectively and without incurring more trauma. So the psychologists' reports can impact investigators' and prosecutors' decision making even if the psychologists can't offer their opinions in court on whether the children were abused.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What source is there for the notion that either report went to RG since Lauro was advised of neither?

Today's Patriot-News article that I linked to.

The mother surely did a great job, first in contacting police and again in securing a psychologist. But how likely is it that she would have given a report to RG, since the investigation was being conducted by PSU police?

She was a witness and almost certainly, unless RFG dropped the ball royally, he'd interview a key witness.

I would think was PSU police who would have told RG. But if they didn't tell Lauro, when the child protection investigators usually work with police, it is possible they didn't give those to RG.

They probably would not have gotten the report. They really are not ones calling in psychological reports and going out of town for it.

The psychologists' reports are very important in sex abuse cases, regardless of what various states' rules of evidence allow for in court. One major question for investigators is always the credibility of the victim.

In this case, you have an admission, which Amendola is trying to suppress. You also have three other witnesses to that admission.

In going with the rest of your post, it is not even clear that Seasock actually interviewed Victim 6.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

There is some question if Seasock had his Ph D at the time. A 2003 list of his credentials does not list it. http://www.childwelfare.gov/calendar/cbconference/fourteenth/presentations/112.cfm He was listed as a licensed professional counselor. There was also some question on if he ever interviewed Victim 6.

The one hired by Victim 6's mother was the one dealing with "grooming." As I indicated previously, "grooming" is not, in itself, illegal. It might be an indication that there should be a greater investigation.

Lauro indicated that never saw either report. He said that it would have changed his decision.

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

Keep in mind that Lauro did not make the decision on if to prosecute. Also keep in mind that Sandusky is not charged with sexual abuse in the 1998 incident, so a finding that he did not commit "sexual abuse" is pretty meaningless.

Hmm. I wonder what happens next when someone like Lauro or a CYS investigator finds sex abuse (or related action)? One of the articles linked above indicates that these two entities (LE and CYS/DPW) at times arrive at different conclusions; what would have happened if, say, the police closed their case but CYS/DPW found abuse?

Regarding "charges," these result from an investigation; charges or no charges are the result of what police learn, and the DA's assessment of whether that case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court. And of course, because someone makes an allegation or LE suspect s someone committed a crime doesn't mean it is true.

The point of the investigation is to investigate what happened and then see if the "what happened" breaks any laws, not to start by picking a charge and then proving it. It would be possible, for example, in a case like this one, that a child might tell a good investigator or a psychologist more than he would tell his mother and so what might have started looking like "corrupting the morals" or some such thing can turn into a lot more--or not.

And just as we don't know whether psychologists would be able to testify in court about what they were told, we do not know whether a judge would have allowed testimony from the people who were present at the sting. We can never assume we know what is admissible in court.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Today's Patriot-News article that I linked to.



She was a witness and almost certainly, unless RFG dropped the ball royally, he'd interview a key witness.

They probably would not have gotten the report. They really are not ones calling in psychological reports and going out of town for it.

In this case, you have an admission, which Amendola is trying to suppress. You also have three other witnesses to that admission.

In going with the rest of your post, it is not even clear that Seasock actually interviewed Victim 6.

Well, if Seasock didn't interview the victim--?? What does that say about the investigation?

JJ, I am not clear what you mean. I did not see any statement in either article that verifies WHAT RG saw or knew. One would think the police would tell RG about both psychologists but if they didn't tell Lauro, I am not going to assume they told RG. It may be that the Seasock report was enough to cover PSU police and they just told RG as they told Lauro that there was "nothing to it." DAs rely on the police investigation both to determine charges and to begin building a case for prosecution. I think it is very clear that PSU police have allowed the perception to be out there that they did a full investigation but RG declined to prosecute--and therefore there was no cover-up in 1998. That Schreffler never told Lauro--whose report and conclusions could have bolstered a prosecution had he found abuse of some kind--about EITHER report suggests an interest in keeping those reports quiet. And if RG didn't know what the first psychologist said and/or if Seasock never talked to the kid but his report was allowed to "counter" the first one, then RG didn't have all he needed to arrive at a decision, He may still have decided not to prosecute,for the same reasons the current prosecutors considered not including Victim 6.

I am very hopeful, though, that the full truth about Sandusky, at least insofar as the first 10 victims we know about are concerned, will come out. May we also learn more about RG's role, through actual evidence.