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

[J. J. in Phila]

Fundraising in football means winning games and going to bowls. A BCS is worth multi-millions. If the football program languishes, and alumni interest wanes, even that sort of fundraising declines. That's why PSU wanted Meyer or someone like him.

Not compared with the amounts Paterno could raise. Remember the threat Paterno made? It wasn't that he'd quit if they didn't get rid of the disciplinary officer. It was that he'd stop raising money if they didn't rid of the disciplinary officer.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: When I wrote that police said there was "nothing to it" [nothing to the allegations against JS] I was referring to Lauro's characterization of what Schreffler said to him. There is no mainstream reference or document that I am aware of that indicates that anyone in the DA's office every spoke publicly about the 1998 case, outside of JKA's cryptic post-GJ comments. We have seen no documentary evidence aboutnthe da role other than the two references to the DA's office, one about JKA and the other about RG.

We do know what the DA did, however. He chose not to file charges. We also know that what Lauro said was after that decision was made.

We do have the final page, which says what it says: essentially that the investigating officers from PSU told JS not to shower with kids. Cased closed. And we have Schreffler's statement that Chief Harmon was the source who told him RG said to close the case.

And we have Scheffler's statement that Gricar decided not to prosecute first and, IIRC, Harmon's statement that he got the infromation from Schreffler.

And we believe anyone from PSU administration for what reason?

Well, in this case, because it was not the PSU administration. It was the Centre County District Attorney's Office. There is a record of the case going there; there is at least one person who said it was there (and hints that others knew it was there, but not the details).

Two adminsitrators are now charged with perjury.

Which is irrelevant, since they are not charged in regard to this case, and, unlike the one where they are charged, the people there say that they did not get the details.

I mentioned JKA and RG in regard to closing the case because I don't know who made that decision. I was not suggesting you said that; I was indicating we don't have evidence about anyone, whether JKA or RG, closing the case.

First of all, it was never JKA's decision to make. That decision is that of the district attorney of the day. He makes the final decision.

Secondly, it is clear from both the record, and from both JKA's and Schreffler's statements, that Gricar made the decision.

As I said, I believe the record, Schreffler, and JKA. We have witnesses that saying the same thing, backed up by a record.

The decision not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998 leads to one spot. It leads to the private office of the District Attorney of Centre County. And all of the evidence that has come out since the grand jury conclusion says the same thing.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There is another issue. Apparently there is a registry of suspected child abusers in PA, "child-line." Sandusky could have been placed of that, and a former AG feels that that he clearly could have been.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

Now, if Lauro is telling the truth, and he never saw the Chambers' report, why didn't the DA sent it over to DPW or, if possible, put Sandusky on the registry directly?

The police report does indicate that the report went to the DA's Office.

 

[pinktoes]

"Chambers gave her report to Penn State police Officer Ronald Schreffler...Chambers had also reported the incident to the Pennsylvania “suspected child abuse” hotline, where officials wrote up their own report identifying Sandusky as the “AP” or “Alleged Perpetrator.” Lauro, an investigator who specialized in abuse cases, was assigned to work the case with Schreffler."

That's how Lauro got involved. Childline got psychologist Chambers' notice of suspected abuse. Then Lauro was assigned to do his own investigation. There will be records of Childline's written report, as referenced.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

 

[pinktoes]

Reading PSU's police report carefully (which is iffy since several pages are missing--and right after the contact is made with Gricar, doggone it). Looks like there was another step of referrals before you get to Lauro. That was Centre County CYS. (I read elsewhere in the media that Centre County CYS didn't handle the abuse investigation because of a conflict of interest--their closeness with Second Mile. But I want to determine what the PSU police thought).

So, it looks like PSU police account was this: Dr. Chambers, a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse, after interviewing the victim, placed a call to Childline. Childline made their own written report and made a referral to Centre County CYS, which would be the appropriate follow-up resource to investigate it.

CC-CYS's John Miller started the work, but somehow then brought in Jerry Lauro, who actually investigated. (see the police report for all the phone calls back and forth amongst all these folks).

Finally, Schreffler at PSU police, and Lauro interviewed Sandusky, advising him that no child abuse was found. And immediately the police report says 'case closed.'

We're missing critical pages about the DA's involvement. I suspect the media is cooperating by not releasing things that might jeopardize the ongoing investigation into Sandusky. Or maybe another open case; IDK.

Link to Jerry Lauro's resume:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/gerald-lauro/37/461/a9b

So, we still don't know if Lauro, rather than Miller handled the investigation (on referral from Childline) because centre county CYS thought there was a real/perceived conflict of interest due to their relationship with Second Mile. Or, if the bumped it up to Lauro because of his superior expertise or position.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"Chambers gave her report to Penn State police Officer Ronald Schreffler...Chambers had also reported the incident to the Pennsylvania “suspected child abuse” hotline, where officials wrote up their own report identifying Sandusky as the “AP” or “Alleged Perpetrator.” Lauro, an investigator who specialized in abuse cases, was assigned to work the case with Schreffler."

That's how Lauro got involved. Childline got psychologist Chambers' notice of suspected abuse. Then Lauro was assigned to do his own investigation. There will be records of Childline's written report, as referenced.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

From the article you quoted:

As a former secretary of public welfare in the 1980s, Cohen had set up a statewide “child-line” registry of suspected child abusers that could serve as a central data base for school officials and others working with children to conduct background checks on prospective employees. Even if there were no criminal charges brought, Cohen said, there was more than enough evidence to have placed Sandusky on the statewide registry.

“Jerry Sandusky should have been on the watch list,” he said. “But instead, the case was closed.”

No, Chambers' report, according to the police report went to the DA's office not to Lauro. Chambers reported the incident by the report wasn't even written when she called.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So, it looks like PSU police account was this: Dr. Chambers, a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse, after interviewing the victim, placed a call to Childline. Childline made their own written report and made a referral to Centre County CYS, which would be the appropriate follow-up resource to investigate it.

The Pennsylvania child abuse line is not the registry. It is a reporting hotline. That is who Dr. Chambers reported it to, along with giving it to the police. There is a registry, which is different (and I didn't even know about it until I read that).

Finally, Schreffler at PSU police, and Lauro interviewed Sandusky, advising him that no child abuse was found. And immediately the police report says 'case closed.'

The "case closed" was after the decision not to prosecute.

So, we still don't know if Lauro, rather than Miller handled the investigation (on referral from Childline) because centre county CYS thought there was a real/perceived conflict of interest due to their relationship with Second Mile. Or, if the bumped it up to Lauro because of his superior expertise or position.

I'm not sure that part is the issue. Second Mile did have some connection to Centre County CYS.

 

[Tipstaff]

Not compared with the amounts Paterno could raise. Remember the threat Paterno made? It wasn't that he'd quit if they didn't get rid of the disciplinary officer. It was that he'd stop raising money if they didn't rid of the disciplinary officer.

Will you please explain this disciplinary officer position and what concerned Paterno about the officer? TIA!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Will you please explain this disciplinary officer position and what concerned Paterno about the officer? TIA!

I did, a week ago.

Paterno's salary was comparable to other coaches: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/39131/a-look-at-big-ten-head-coaches-salaries

The difference between Paterno and the others was he donated a lot of it back to PSU and he raised money for them. He actually had donated 4 times his final year's salary back to the University.

It wasn't related directly to Sandusky, but here is the quote:

Triponey also said she was told by Spanier that the coach had given the president an ultimatum: Fire her or Paterno would stop raising funds for the university. Spanier told Triponey that he would pick her, though he didn’t want to have to make that decision.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...te-money-above-disclosure-of-child-abuse.html

Basically, it was a turf battle over who would discipline football players. After a great deal of conflict, Paterno gave his ultimatum.

Here is an interview with Triponey: http://espn.go.com/college-football...ficer-questioned-joe-paterno-player-treatment

The source of Paterno's power was that he would raise money.

In 2011, he couldn't use that tactic, for a number of reasons. Any fundraising ability was tarnished by the Sandusky Scandal. Paterno was in his late 70's in 2007 so, he might have had 5-10 years of fundraising left; he might have had 5 years left in 2011 at best (and at worst, none).

 

[pinktoes]

Thanks, JJ. I do understand that Childline's hotline is only the first step in getting placed on their registry. First an investigation must be done.

I also understand that, in Cohen's opinion, there was sufficient evidence to get Sandusky placed on the registry.

But, something had to happen first. Someone authorized to do so had to enter his name on the registry based on the findings of some investigator.

What I'm looking for is Centre County's own written policies in place when the 1998 incident took place. Not people's interpretations of policies, evidence, or whatever. Most of what I've read, like everyone else, is newpaper reporters' interviews. I always like to go back to the original documents or testimony.

The conclusion that Schreffler closed his case based on the DA's decision is a media account and/or statement. Nor is it under oath. If anyone has any links to original source info I'd love to see it posted. I mostly want to see those missing pgs of the PSU police report, which might at least contain Schreffler's own written account of the sequence of events; his record of phone calls and conversations, etc. Then I'll feel better informed. Looks so far like he was pretty diligent in his investigation in house.

I just like to inquire about deviations from normal procedure, so that makes the use of Lauro rather than Miller of interest to me. Maybe there's info there; maybe not.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Apparently the registry is determined by a "founded" or "indicated" finding by DPW. Here is the pamphlet. http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/communication/p_011835.pdf

Lauro ruled it "unfounded," but according to him, he never had the Chambers' report (or even the more favorable Seasock report). Those were both sent to the DA's Office.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is the statute: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/subchapatoc.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

But, something had to happen first. Someone authorized to do so had to enter his name on the registry based on the findings of some investigator.

DPW has to investigate, but no one told them about Chambers' report.

What I'm looking for is Centre County's own written policies in place when the 1998 incident took place. Not people's interpretations of policies, evidence, or whatever. Most of what I've read, like everyone else, is newpaper reporters' interviews. I always like to go back to the original documents or testimony.

Since Cohnen helped write the policy and since he was the Acting AG of Pennsylvania, I go with him.

The conclusion that Schreffler closed his case based on the DA's decision is a media account and/or statement. Nor is it under oath.

Once again, Schreffler does not the authority not to prosecute. We know who did in 1998.

I just like to inquire about deviations from normal procedure, so that makes the use of Lauro rather than Miller of interest to me. Maybe there's info there; maybe not.

There is no suggestion that Lauro knew about Chambers' report and he said he didn't. Schreffler didn't say that he turned the report over to Lauro. JKA has not indicated that she did.

 

[Tipstaff]

Thank you JJ.

This is snipped from the Bloomberg article you linked above -

"It also creates an environment where a coach like Paterno, a Brooklyn, New York, native known as “JoePa” whose bronze statue stands outside 107,000-seat Beaver Stadium, had the power to tell the university’s president that he wouldn’t help raise another penny if the school’s top disciplinarian wasn’t fired for being too strict with his players."

So powerful was Paterno that he threatens the university president because he wasn't happy with how his players were being disciplined - imagine the power Paterno had over his coaches and other Penn State faculty and staff.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thank you JJ.

This is snipped from the Bloomberg article you linked above -

"It also creates an environment where a coach like Paterno, a Brooklyn, New York, native known as “JoePa” whose bronze statue stands outside 107,000-seat Beaver Stadium, had the power to tell the university’s president that he wouldn’t help raise another penny if the school’s top disciplinarian wasn’t fired for being too strict with his players."

So powerful was Paterno that he threatens the university president because he wasn't happy with how his players were being disciplined - imagine the power Paterno had over his coaches and other Penn State faculty and staff.

There were some difference. Triponey was an employee, and Sandusky was not, in 2002. Paterno's threat came after a long power struggle between the two, where the issues were clear; the issues with Sandusky were not clear in 2002.

 

[pinktoes]

NHS Human Services: Joseph Rocks, Chief Executive Officer

by HCE Exchange on May 6, 2011

http://www.healthcareix.com/2011/05/nhs-human-services-joseph-rocks-chief-executive-officer/

This is where Jerry Lauro works now (see my earlier link for dates he furnished on his LinkedIn). Anybody know anything about NHS?

 

[pinktoes]

JJ: as I understand it, statutory requirements are that the COUNTY agency is to handle child abuse investigations. Lauro worked for the STATE's Dept of Public Welfare. Not the county.

Have you found in the statute where it requires DPW (that is a state agency) to do those investigations? I need to find the language--if you can find it, please give me the section number.

Or, anyone else?? Thanks

 

[Rlaub44]

JJ: as I understand it, statutory requirements are that the COUNTY agency is to handle child abuse investigations. Lauro worked for the STATE's Dept of Public Welfare. Not the county.

Have you found in the statute where it requires DPW (that is a state agency) to do those investigations? I need to find the language--if you can find it, please give me the section number.

Or, anyone else?? Thanks

Sorry pinktoes, you won't find such language. The county agency is charged with investigating all abuse reports within that county, but they are not completely autonomous in doing so.

If I call Centre County Children and Youth to report suspected abuse, and the intake worker feels my report meets the criteria for investigation, they will contact ChildLine, the state agency under the auspices of DPW, where it is assigned a number. Or I can call ChildLine directly, and they will contact the county agency to begin the report, if warranted.

That step also starts the clock, and I believe the county agency has either 30 or 60 days (I don't remember anymore) to determine the outcome (founded, unfounded, or indicated). DPW follows up to ensure that the county agency completes the investigation on time. So even though the county agency is listed as having responsibility to investigate, it is always under the direction of DPW anyways

In this case, I think it was a good decision for CCCYS to ask DPW to investigate, because the potential conflict of interest was far too great to ignore. Can you imagine what people would be saying now if the county agency, which worked closely with Second Mile AND placed kids in Sandusky's home, had determined that the 1998 incident was unfounded? It would be yet another group involved in the cover-up.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: as I understand it, statutory requirements are that the COUNTY agency is to handle child abuse investigations. Lauro worked for the STATE's Dept of Public Welfare. Not the county.

Have you found in the statute where it requires DPW (that is a state agency) to do those investigations? I need to find the language--if you can find it, please give me the section number.

Or, anyone else?? Thanks

I think these sections might cover it:


§ 3490.53. Functions of the county agency for child protective services.
(a) The county agency is the sole civil agency responsible for receiving and investigating reports of child abuse except reports of abuse allegedly perpetrated by an agent. The county agency shall investigate allegations of abuse of children residing in facilities operated directly by the Department.



§ 3490.54. Independent investigation of reports.
Except for reports investigated by the Department, the county agency shall investigate and make independent determinations on reports of suspected child abuse, regardless of another investigation conducted by another agency, the court or the police and regardless of whether or not the person making the report identified himself. A county agency may rely on an investigation of substantially the same allegations by a law enforcement agency to support the county agency’s finding regarding a child abuse report. This reliance does not limit the duties required of the county agency by section 6368 of the CPSL (relating to investigation of reports).




§ 3490.81. Responsibilities of the Department and the county agency.
(a) When the suspected abuse has been committed by an agent of the county agency, the regional staff shall investigate the report under section 6362 of the CPSL (relating to responsibilities of county agency for child protective services) and this chapter. The regional staff may not do any of the following:

(1) Take protective custody.

(2) Petition the court.

(3) Provide services.

(b) If a report is determined indicated or founded and the regional staff determines that services are necessary, the regional staff, the county agency in the county where the abuse occurred and the county agency with custody or supervision of the child, if different, shall plan for social and rehabilitative services for the child and perpetrator. The plan shall identify which county is responsible for case management.

(c) Regional staff shall conduct the investigation regardless of the relationship of the agent to the subject child.

I think Sandusky met the definition of an "agent of the county agency."

 

[Reader]

We do know what the DA did, however. He chose not to file charges. We also know that what Lauro said was after that decision was made.



And we have Scheffler's statement that Gricar decided not to prosecute first and, IIRC, Harmon's statement that he got the infromation from Schreffler.



Well, in this case, because it was not the PSU administration. It was the Centre County District Attorney's Office. There is a record of the case going there; there is at least one person who said it was there (and hints that others knew it was there, but not the details).



Which is irrelevant, since they are not charged in regard to this case, and, unlike the one where they are charged, the people there say that they did not get the details.




First of all, it was never JKA's decision to make. That decision is that of the district attorney of the day. He makes the final decision.

Secondly, it is clear from both the record, and from both JKA's and Schreffler's statements, that Gricar made the decision.

As I said, I believe the record, Schreffler, and JKA. We have witnesses that saying the same thing, backed up by a record.

The decision not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998 leads to one spot. It leads to the private office of the District Attorney of Centre County. And all of the evidence that has come out since the grand jury conclusion says the same thing.

There is another issue. Apparently there is a registry of suspected child abusers in PA, "child-line." Sandusky could have been placed of that, and a former AG feels that that he clearly could have been.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.T3HHEdUf6V8

Now, if Lauro is telling the truth, and he never saw the Chambers' report, why didn't the DA sent it over to DPW or, if possible, put Sandusky on the registry directly?
The police report does indicate that the report went to the DA's Office.

BBM

Well, after all the back and forth this decision by the DA Gricar is what puzzles me the most. He had all the reports from the police, CYS and Chambers, with the details of what happened and JS's admission. There was the new statute as you stated before that could have been used for charges. He also could and should have at least placed JS on the predator registry.

I just can't understand why not do so...this was his job and from previous comments he was usually very good at it and this decision was an anomaly from the way he usually operated.

It so frustrating to know if JS could have been stopped in 1998 so many children could have been saved from his abuses.

Does anybody have any idea of some person(s) or institution, who could have influenced him to make this horrendous wrong decision? It just blows the mind to find this case hidden away and JS allowed to go on his merry way with no consequences, other than possibly being pushed out of his job. But they STILL allowed him on campus with children! Who did he know? Who helped him get out of these charges? What the heck went on for a 'good' DA to allow this proven, admitted and analyzed child abuser to remain un-outed and unpunished? Did Gricar have any connections with TSM? It's maddening...