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

[J. J. in Phila]

Just to follow up, here is the definition of "Agent of the county agency":

§ 3490.4. Definitions.

Agent of the county agency—A person who provides a children and youth social service either directly or under contract or through agreement with a county agency.

(i) An agent of the county agency includes:

(A) Preadoptive parents.

(B) Foster parents.

(C) Staff and volunteers of public and private residential child care facilities.

(D) Staff and volunteers of public and private day care centers, group day care homes and family day care homes.

(E) Staff and volunteers of public and private social service agencies.

(F) Staff and volunteers of county detention centers.

(G) Persons residing in the home of foster or preadoptive parents.

(H) A school employe of a facility or agency that is an agent of a county agency.

I bolded the two that I thought might be applicable.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

DPW, in this case, would be the ones putting on the registry, but Lauro says that he was given the Chambers' report, which is damning. Now, is Lauro telling the truth? So far, it is consistent with what Schreffler put in the police report.

Now, I would call it a lapse of judgment of Gricar's part in not following up with Lauro in making sure that the report was sent. I'm not sure if he was legally required to.

It was obviously exceedingly bad judgment not to do a followup with Lauro. As of this point, there is no information that he did. (And, for that matter, there is no indication Lauro asked for it either.)

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.

That is one of the great mysteries of this case. I've been writing about the Gricar case for three years, looking at as much of record as I could find, and if you had told me he didn't prosecute a case like this on 11/3/11, I would have called you insane. This was not characteristic of the rest of his record.

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

Even putting him on the registry could have stopped this.

Does anybody have any idea of some person(s) or institution, who could have influenced him to make this horrendous wrong decision?

In strict terms of prosecution, the felony statute Sandusky was tried under was less than 6 months old. It is possible that Gricar didn't realize that Sandusky could be charged under it. He might have missed the statute change or didn't understand it.

It will be interesting to hear from JKA on that possibility.

Another possibility, raised from time to time (and frankly Bob Buehner and Tony Gricar have hinted at this), was that RFG thought Sandusky was just too popular and that there would be a political cost. Basically, RFG was part of that culture of turning a blind eye to Sandusky. If he was, he wasn't alone in that. [It that was the case, I'd be very disappointed.]

There are other possibilities, but I really don't want to think about them. They are far worse. [I'm prepared for that, unfortunately.]

I have found no direct tie between Second Mile and Gricar.

 

[pinktoes]

JJ: thanks for all your work on the statute. I've found a CFSR from 2002 that describes the structure of DPW. Unfortunately, PA didn't start doing CFSRs till 2000, so I haven't yet found a written document I'm looking for.

So, acc to the CFSR of 2002, the state DPW (and I presume the correct division--the one where Lauro worked) was the correct agency to investigate child abuse suspicions in certain select circumstances. One of those being where the suspect was a foster parent. That would fit Sandusky.

http://www.pacwcbt.pitt.edu/Organizational Effectiveness/AdmnsHndbk/RsrcMtrls/CFSR/CFSRSelfAssessment2002.pdf

See last para of pg 2 and top of pg 3.


So, I'm looking for 1998.

TY again.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ: thanks for all your work on the statute. I've found a CFSR from 2002 that describes the structure of DPW. Unfortunately, PA didn't start doing CFSRs till 2000, so I haven't yet found a written document I'm looking for.

So, acc to the CFSR of 2002, the state DPW (and I presume the correct division--the one where Lauro worked) was the correct agency to investigate child abuse suspicions in certain select circumstances. One of those being where the suspect was a foster parent. That would fit Sandusky.

http://www.pacwcbt.pitt.edu/Organizational Effectiveness/AdmnsHndbk/RsrcMtrls/CFSR/CFSRSelfAssessment2002.pdf

See last para of pg 2 and top of pg 3.


So, I'm looking for 1998.

TY again.

I would presume that was the right branch of the agency. DPW is huge.

Disclosure: I worked in the income maintenance branch of DPW in the mid 1990's, but not contemporaneous with the 1998 incident. I was welfare caseworker, assessing if people should get welfare and Food Stamps, with the well deserved street name of "The Devil Himself."

 

[Reader]

Thanks for your response, J.J.

Some of the things you don't want to think about that might have influenced Gricar are IMO:

threats to his job or person

bribes (one person or a group)

favors (personal or on the job)

threats to his reputation (if HE had something to hide)

increase in salary or pension

promise of a higher political post

Also, I wonder if he could have been reported for not handling the case correctly to the Governor?

We've had cases in Florida, usually deaths, that have been taken over by the Gov and given to FDLE (similar to Trayvon case) for investigation and charges. In one of the most famous cases Rilya Wilson who was missing, Gov. Bush fired the head of DCF and appointed a panel to investigate and make recommendations. Several CPS workers lost their jobs also and a couple were charged for lying about the case.

I know this case is not on that level but it looks like if someone really cared about the child and thinking about JS being allowed to go on with his abuse and predatory behavior, they could have made that call.

But it seems that nobody really cared about anything but just processing the case and getting rid of it as quickly as possible.

 

[Reader]

I would presume that was the right branch of the agency. DPW is huge.

Disclosure: I worked in the income maintenance branch of DPW in the mid 1990's, but not contemporaneous with the 1998 incident. I was welfare caseworker, assessing if people should get welfare and Food Stamps, with the well deserved street name of "The Devil Himself."

J.J. worked for the 'welfare department'!

'The Devil Himself'....I can see it, LOL...

Most states are probably set up much the same just with different titles. In Florida the headquarters/administration/policy/personnel dept. is in the capitol, Tallahassee. That is where the child abuse hotline workers are located. Those reports are then sent to a county office for investigation.

Then there are district/state offices around the state that cover several counties each, also mostly administrative/personnel/policy experts that more or less supervise the county offices. (Lauro might have worked out of one of those?)

Then the actual county offices take and process the applications, house the local CPS workers, Medicaid/nursing home workers. Most counties also have branch offices.

I won't even mention when I started but it was when we still visited every client to complete their application and reviews and verified everything. IOW, the olden days, LOL.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

increase in salary or pension

I can rule out this one completely. The salary of the DA's office was fixed by state statute, though the county could, at the time, set full time (full salary) or part time (basically half salary). In 1996-7, RFG went from part time to full time. His salary could not be increased except by changing the state statute.

Also, I wonder if he could have been reported for not handling the case correctly to the Governor? .

In PA, a district attorney can only be removed from office by three method:

1. Upon conviction of "misbehavior in office" or upon conviction of an "infamous crime," by a court.

2. By impeachment by the state House and conviction by a 2/3 vote of the state Senate.

3. By the state Senate, by a 2/3 vote, after upon the "address" of the governor, though this has not been used in at least 35 years and is considered obsolete today.

Most of the information is found here: http://www.newpa.com/webfm_send/1551

(This is probably more about PA Constitutional Law than you ever wanted to know.)

In theory, a DA could be disbarred and therefore become ineligible, but I don't think that has ever happened. So far, there is no evidence that indicate disbarment was in order.

The state AG (Mike Fisher at the time) could petition the court to remove the DA from the case, "suppression," if the DA fails to prosecute and the AG feels that it is abuse of discretion. Of course, the AG would have to know about it first.

 

[Reader]

I can rule out this one completely. The salary of the DA's office was fixed by state statute, though the county could, at the time, set full time (full salary) or part time (basically half salary). In 1996-7, RFG went from part time to full time. His salary could not be increased except by changing the state statute.



In PA, a district attorney can only be removed from office by three method:

1. Upon conviction of "misbehavior in office" or upon conviction of an "infamous crime," by a court.

2. By impeachment by the state House and conviction by a 2/3 vote of the state Senate.

3. By the state Senate, by a 2/3 vote, after upon the "address" of the governor, though this has not been used in at least 35 years and is considered obsolete today.

Most of the information is found here: http://www.newpa.com/webfm_send/1551

(This is probably more about PA Constitutional Law than you ever wanted to know.)

In theory, a DA could be disbarred and therefore become ineligible, but I don't think that has ever happened. So far, there is no evidence that indicate disbarment was in order.

The state AG (Mike Fisher at the time) could petition the court to remove the DA from the case, "suppression," if the DA fails to prosecute and the AG feels that it is abuse of discretion. Of course, the AG would have to know about it first.

I figured so about the salary but just in case it was possible. Do they give bonuses in Pa.? Maybe some political person offered him a big bonus if he let the case slide. In Fl. you can get nominated to get a bonus for doing a good job that year. No lie...every agency gives out bonuses every year...

Yep, that is a lot to digest this late...but I wasn't really meaning to remove him or impeach him...just someone call the governor and let him know about the case and that they disagreed with it not being charged by the DA. The gov could have called him on the carpet and made him relook at the facts and evidence and the law and explain why a charge could not be made. MAYBE he would have re-thought it!

 

[Pensfan]

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.

He may have been on Childline, but if CPS found the case to be unsubstantiated he could appeal to have his name removed from the registry.




In Pennsylvania, a parent can be branded an abuser for spanking a child, and then remain on a state list with pedophiles and felons without the benefit of a court hearing, attorneys say.

"The process puts the cart before the horse," said Aaron Martin, a constitutional attorney with a private practice in Kennett Square, Chester County. "You are first declared guilty by the state, and then it is up to you to challenge that indication to assert your innocence."

Under state law, child protective service agencies such as county Children and Youth Services must investigate all reports of child abuse within 24 hours. When a social worker or police officer deems a report to be valid, law requires the immediate — and permanent — placement of the suspect's name on the state child abuse registry, regardless of whether police ever charge the person with a crime.

Pennsylvania's registry contained 112,580 names last year, the most recent figure available. Registry information is confidential and unavailable to the general public, but school districts, day care centers and other child service groups can use it to screen potential employees. The only way a name can be expunged from the registry is through an appeal hearing, attorneys said.

Read more: Pennsylvania child abuse registry posts names before due process - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_738350.html#ixzz1qOAHc8qa

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I figured so about the salary but just in case it was possible. Do they give bonuses in Pa.? Maybe some political person offered him a big bonus if he let the case slide. In Fl. you can get nominated to get a bonus for doing a good job that year. No lie...every agency gives out bonuses every year...

Yep, that is a lot to digest this late...but I wasn't really meaning to remove him or impeach him...just someone call the governor and let him know about the case and that they disagreed with it not being charged by the DA. The gov could have called him on the carpet and made him relook at the facts and evidence and the law and explain why a charge could not be made. MAYBE he would have re-thought it!

No bonuses and the governor, short of those methods, could not make RFG do anything.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There is now a big story about Seasock's lesser qualifications in 1998:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/28/3142783/credentials-challenged.html

This, IMO, is overblown, as far as the prosecution, both now and in 1998, because neither opinion was or is admissible.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

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.

Penn State football--$91 million PLUS in 2007-8. But that requires a winning program, which would mean great coaching and recruiting after Paterno left. Are you telling me that Paterno personally tapped people for that much year after year? And you think his son could do the same? How about a link for that?

http://http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

 

[pittsburghgirl]

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.

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

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.

 

[pinktoes]

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

 

[pittsburghgirl]

While the psychologists' reports are inadmissible, and the psychologists can't testify as to their findings, such reports are very important in the assessment of what occurred, whether what occurred was a crime that could be prosecuted. Whether there was evicence of a crime: what the child witness could testify to, how vulnerable the child's account would be under cross examination, what other evidence there might be (clothing with DNA, potential pictures depicting abuse, notes, phone call, etc.). But remember that under discovery rules, these reports would have gone to the defense attorneys (as we can see in the current process) as would Lauro's report. Don't think for a moment that the defense wouldn't have put on experts that would have said, as Seasock said, that Sandusky's behavior fell within the "male coach" role.

We do not have, as yet, anything about the second potential victim from 1998. If the investigation was thorough, there has to be the same sort of material about that victim. What did those interviews with the other child turn up? Were there psych reports? Was he willing or able to testify?

We have one psychologist conclude that Sandusky was not grooming Victim 6 and that JS's behavior appeared to be consistent with his role as male coach. We have a stalwart parent willing to follow through and a son with a consistent story but who has some ambivalence about the totality of his experience with JS and expresses some interest in continuing with the football games, etc. The other psychologist (quite sensibly) recognizes this behavior as "grooming" but elicits no information about actual sexual abuse. Her job, of course is to report to the government agencies and warn the mother, which she does. In the sting, Sandusky runs right up to the line but never admits to deliberately touching the child in a sexual way. The sting produces what we can see is JS's weirdness but no confession to abuse. Lauro finds no reason to keep his case open when Schreffler says PSU LE is closing its case.

So what would the other 1998 victim add to this picture? Without that information, we are still not clear on who knew what and why decisions were made.

Let's also remember that PSU LE could have continued to investigate, in spite of anything anyone in the DA's office would have said. Were there interviews with Second Mile kids? Or JS's foster children? Was there any discussion of phone taps or surveillance? Were there interviews with PSU football personnel or players, in an attempt to find someone who might have seen something. We don't know, yet, just as we did not know about the two psych reports.

One thing I do know is that PSU LE could have gone to Sandusky's supervisor and told him we think this guy is a pedophile, if they felt there was a case and the DA was dropping the ball. Or they could have continued to investigate and keep the case open. As pinktoes said, until we get the key people under oath so we can compare what they have claimed in the media to what the documents say and to their GJ testimony, let's not speculate that the one guy who has never been able to defend himself, Ray Gricar, was involved in covering up for Sandusky. It's pretty clear who was up to that in 2002, when Schultz (in charge of PSU police) could have called the DA at that time and said Sandusky had been seen raping a boy. It seems more likely to me that the order to close the case in 1998 came down the PSU food chain. The feds are looking at cover-up back to that date. Schreffler was told to close the case by his Chief, who blamed RG. RG may have said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. All that would have meant is that the investigation would need to continue until The police had enough to make an arrest.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Penn State football--$91 million PLUS in 2007-8. But that requires a winning program, which would mean great coaching and recruiting after Paterno left. Are you telling me that Paterno personally tapped people for that much year after year? And you think his son could do the same? How about a link for that?

http://http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

Considering that even a bad program will make some money, it was probably a positive on the balance sheet.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

While the psychologists' reports are inadmissible, and the psychologists can't testify as to their findings, such reports are very important in the assessment of what occurred, whether what occurred was a crime that could be prosecuted. Whether there was evicence of a crime: what the child witness could testify to, how vulnerable the child's account would be under cross examination, what other evidence there might be (clothing with DNA, potential pictures depicting abuse, notes, phone call, etc.). But remember that under discovery rules, these reports would have gone to the defense attorneys (as we can see in the current process) as would Lauro's report. Don't think for a moment that the defense wouldn't have put on experts that would have said, as Seasock said, that Sandusky's behavior fell within the "male coach" role.

There are now questions about Seasock's ability to claim that. I do think it would be gigantically unlikely for any experienced psychologist to say that it is "coachly" to bear hug naked people in the shower.

We do not have, as yet, anything about the second potential victim from 1998. If the investigation was thorough, there has to be the same sort of material about that victim. What did those interviews with the other child turn up? Were there psych reports? Was he willing or able to testify?

Willing isn't a question; he could be compelled to testify (and still might show up). That was just a straight forward report, from what we have heard so far.

We have one psychologist conclude that Sandusky was not grooming Victim 6 and that JS's behavior appeared to be consistent with his role as male coach. We have a stalwart parent willing to follow through and a son with a consistent story but who has some ambivalence about the totality of his experience with JS and expresses some interest in continuing with the football games, etc.

Keep in mind that only one was a psychologist at the time.

In the sting, Sandusky runs right up to the line but never admits to deliberately touching the child in a sexual way. The sting produces what we can see is JS's weirdness but no confession to abuse.

He does not have to; try to understand that. It only has to be an act of "open lewdness" for the felony.

Lauro finds no reason to keep his case open when Schreffler says PSU LE is closing its case.

Lauro didn't have the Chambers' report.

So what would the other 1998 victim add to this picture?

Corroboration.

You've made a lot of assumptions about the felony that are wrong. The statute was posted.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He may have been on Childline, but if CPS found the case to be unsubstantiated he could appeal to have his name removed from the registry.

So, let him appeal. With the Chambers' report, and the witnesses, it would have become very unlikely for that to occur.

It really comes down to if you think a 55 year old naked man should be bear hugging naked little boys from behind in the shower. I think the legal term for that is "no-brainier."

 

[pinktoes]

"It really comes down to if you think a 55 year old naked man should be bear hugging naked little boys from behind in the shower. I think the legal term for that is "no-brainier." "

I disagree, JJ. I accept it as a statement reflecting personal emotion.

But what it really, REALLY comes down to, is "do I think I can get a conviction?"

Since I'm neither an experienced DA, nor do I reside in Centre County, (nor do I have all the facts), I have to defer to someone who was all that.

But I still agree with your anger and frustration. We all feel it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"It really comes down to if you think a 55 year old naked man should be bear hugging naked little boys from behind in the shower. I think the legal term for that is "no-brainier." "

I disagree, JJ. I accept it as a statement reflecting personal emotion.

But what it really, REALLY comes down to, is "do I think I can get a conviction?"

Well, I can say if you think such an act constitutes "open lewdness." RFG prosecuted cases, that he lost, that he knew would be almost impossible to win.

If RFG looked at this and said "Penn State is too big. Sandusky is too popular. He broke the law and there is sufficient evidence, but I won't try it," that would still be a colossal lapse of judgment. He would have become part of the culture of coverup at Penn State. I'm not saying that he did think that.