The 1998 Investigation

[J. J. in Phila]

So, Gricar made his decision before the investigation was even completed, that's what it sounds like to me....along with the questions of why he took the usual SA investigator Karen (can't remember her last name) off the case, who overrode her instructions to LE not to bring in another psychologist than Chambers (who in DPW), and did Gricar have access to and read both of those reports by Chambers and Seasock.

The Chambers report was submitted to the DA's Office, but we can't be sure he read it. It would not speak well of him if he didn't. Still, he had some distrust of psychology.

IDK but it just seems to me he made the decision for no charges without a lot of information that normally would be needed and waited to be completed before any decision is made....makes me wonder what or who was influencing him in this decision and why the hurry before everything was completed?

And I understand he had/has a good reputation for prosecuting cases and being a tough SA, that's why it's so funny/strange in how he handled this case...it does not seem to be the normal way he operated....

I've looked at as many of his cases as possible, and Gricar generally was a thorough prosecutor. He would prosecute even if it would create a political problem. He had a great record, except for Sandusky.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Kathleen Kane won the PA Attorney General's race. She has talked about investigating Corbett, but not about the 1998 decision.

I didn't know where else to put it.

 

[Pink Panther]

We did find out or can confirm two things about the 1998 investigation:

1. Gricar made his decision about not prosecuting Sandusky before Lauro did. Both Schreffler and Lauro say so.

2. Gricar made his decision prior to anyone interviewing Sandusky.

How can you state any of these two statements? Link please. Particularly for number 2.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

How can you state any of these two statements? Link please. Particularly for number 2.

Read the Grand Jury presentment on Spanier, pages 7-8; both are in there.

Schreffler indicated that the first contact with Sandusky, regarding Victim 6, was on June 1, after RFG made his decision (unless you are suggesting a secret Gricar/Sandusky meeting).

Lauro came to his conclusion on June 1, according to the redacted police report (final page). By that time, according to the presentment, RFG had made his decision.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here is the link to the Spanier Grand Jury presentment: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/spanier-schultz-curley_presentment-11-1-12.pdf

Here is the link to the redacted police report: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf

 

[Pink Panther]

Here is the link to the Spanier Grand Jury presentment: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/spanier-schultz-curley_presentment-11-1-12.pdf

Here is the link to the redacted police report: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf

From what I can understand, these documents show that no "criminal charges" were made but the investigation continued.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From what I can understand, these documents show that no "criminal charges" were made but the investigation continued.

The police report ends with the words "CASE CLOSED." The Grand Jury presentment indicates that RFG had made the decision not to prosecute prior to the Sandusky/Schreffler/Lauro meeting on June 1, 1998, at 11:00 AM.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Retired University Park Police Detective Schreffler talks about the 1998 investigation and why charges weren't pursued. He had a high opinion of DA Gricar, it seems. Supposedly, he now works for Homeland Security, which I've heard before, but I had forgotton where I heard it...maybe it was from here:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...-sandusky-investigation-224764/#ixzz2AGYKGWn1

Glad people are still contributing here. Sorry I haven't been around.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Retired University Park Police Detective Schreffler talks about the 1998 investigation and why charges weren't pursued. He had a high opinion of DA Gricar, it seems. Supposedly, he now works for Homeland Security, which I've heard before, but I had forgotton where I heard it...maybe it was from here:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...-sandusky-investigation-224764/#ixzz2AGYKGWn1

Glad people are still contributing here. Sorry I haven't been around.

He also testified under oath that there was enough evidence to prosecute in 1998.

 

[Reader]

Retired University Park Police Detective Schreffler talks about the 1998 investigation and why charges weren't pursued. He had a high opinion of DA Gricar, it seems. Supposedly, he now works for Homeland Security, which I've heard before, but I had forgotton where I heard it...maybe it was from here:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...-sandusky-investigation-224764/#ixzz2AGYKGWn1

Glad people are still contributing here. Sorry I haven't been around.

We've missed you, nittanylioness! I either missed it or haven't seen these quotes before, very interesting...just can't imagine how an experienced DA like Gricar did not know charges were certainly indicated...and apparently JS took this as license to continue with his behavior....a very good opportunity to stop his abuse of boys was missed.

At the time, Mr. Gricar spoke to Mr. Schreffler's police chief, Tom Harmon, and that was it.

"'Gricar said there wasn't enough to charge, and he said to close the case,'" Mr. Schreffler recounted.

And that was it.

"Jerry never viewed the 1998 situation as significant because he was only contacted briefly about it and Accuser No. 6's mother continued to encourage Jerry to do things with [the boy] afterwards."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We've missed you, nittanylioness! I either missed it or haven't seen these quotes before, very interesting...just can't imagine how an experienced DA like Gricar did not know charges were certainly indicated...and apparently JS took this as license to continue with his behavior....a very good opportunity to stop his abuse of boys was missed.

I agree regarding missing you, and generally do like hear from people with a Penn State tie.

In all fairness, the law that Sandusky was convicted of violating, the four count felony conviction, was a new statute in 1998, about 4 months old. He may not have realized he could charge under it. There were others that he clearly could have and were around for years (but were misdemeanors and wouldn't have put Sandusky on Megan's List).

Now, if that was the case, it is still a hugely bad decision on RFG's part.

The problem is, what about some of the other things mentioned on this thread in combination with this? The person who normally these types of cases was removed. There was no interview of Sandusky by LE prior to the decision being made. The Chambers' Report was not sent to DPW, according to Lauro. The case seemed to have been closed fairly quickly. Were these just, uncharacteristic, administrative errors, or something else?

Finally, we have that meeting on 10/13/98, involving everyone in the investigation, about an "investigation," and Ganter on campus. We don't know the subject. Even without the meeting, it certainly raises some red flags.

 

[Reader]

Red flags popping up all over, J. J., to me also...about the new statute, wouldn't it be part of RG's job to keep up with these kinds of changes...if not him personally, an ADA could research it for him? It just seems somehow for some reason this case was not taken seriously by him....plus all of the other unusual changes and slip ups in procedures, ignoring the Chambers report and the LE recommendation for charges, it makes the way this case was handled very suspicious to me..

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Red flags popping up all over, J. J., to me also...about the new statute, wouldn't it be part of RG's job to keep up with these kinds of changes...if not him personally, an ADA could research it for him?

That should have been JKA, whom RFG removed from the case, after "extensive disagreements." Still, RFG's possible unfamiliarity with the statute (and these things were not online until 2007), might have been a factor. Now, that raises the question of why he took the case away from JKA, if he wasn't familiar with the statute,

It just seems somehow for some reason this case was not taken seriously by him....plus all of the other unusual changes and slip ups in procedures, ignoring the Chambers report and the LE recommendation for charges, it makes the way this case was handled very suspicious to me..

Neither the conclusions of Chambers nor Seasock were admissible in 1998, and were not used in convicting Sandusky. In theory, that should not have been a factor. If RFG, however, would form a broader opinion, looking at if there was a problem, why go with Seasock? Seasock was not a licensed psychologist at the time, did not have his Ph D, and had less experience than Chambers, even when talking about related experience.

DPW could use both reports, but Lauro has said he never saw the Chambers' report. Why wasn't that forwarded to Lauro (and why didn't he check)? Again, JKA, normally did that, but she was off the case. Did RFG realize that Lauro never got it? Maybe he didn't.

This could be nothing more than a series of hugely bad judgments on RFG's part, and some seriously horrific administrative mistakes? Maybe. He was known to make them, however.

One thing that I would note is that Sloane was involved in the case, according to Ganim. He was, by all accounts, RFG's closest friend. When this came out, he never once claimed that there was insufficient evidence to try Sandusky in 1998. Those that did were unfamiliar with the evidence (and friends of RFG).

 

[Reader]

Eileen Morgan: Why was Going Back to the 1998 Investigation So Crucial?

http://www.statecollege.com/news/co...to-the-1998-investigation-so-crucial-1229834/

Q. Why did the Attorney General (AG) and Louis Freeh focus on the 1998 investigation of Jerry Sandusky and force this to be the crucial starting point?

A. Because the AG had to use the 1998 investigation to fit their narrative that the Penn State (PSU) officials had covered up for Jerry Sandusky’s child molestation for over a decade and this narrative allowed the AG to cover up the failures of PA state agencies in the 1998 investigation.

Here’s my theory.

This story is much more sensational: Joe Paterno, iconic head football coach of Penn State, known worldwide for his no-nonsense approach to life and football, beloved by players, students, and fans alike, enabled his assistant coach to have freedom to molest innocent children in the PSU football facilities in order to protect his precious Penn State football program.

This sensationalized story, which was the narrative from the start, focused on Joe Paterno and his alleged failure. It doesn’t focus on the true criminal. This was what the media took and ran with. Sure, they mentioned Sandusky’s name, but that was not their focus. This is exactly what the AG/Freeh wanted............more at link......


Basically, to me, this is another protection attempt for JoePa....I don't know about others but this theory does not fly with me......I do not think Freeh would engage in this type of use of his investigation....he had many investigators and interviewed hundreds of people and looked at thousands of documents...did all of those people also go along with directing the investigation to frame JP....I don't think so....but others might have a different opinion....

Morgan also wrote PSARS critique of the Freeh report posted here:

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FREEH REPORT
ON THE JERRY SANDUSKY SCANDAL
August 10, 2012
Eileen Morgan-Penn State ‘90

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8267325&postcount=378"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky-Report of the Special Investigative Counsel[/ame]

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not directed to you Reader, but that is one of the silliest theories out there.

In 2009-10, Corbett was not governor and wouldn't need to "protect" DPW. CYS was a county service. Further, what conservative Republican would want to protect a group of bureaucrats, that are mostly Democrats.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This could be nothing more than a series of hugely bad judgments on RFG's part, and some seriously horrific administrative mistakes? Maybe. He was known to make them, however.

Left out a "not." RFG was not generally known to make administrative mistakes.

 

[Reader]

Not directed to you reader, but that is one of the silliest theories out there.

In 2009-10, Corbett was not governor and wouldn't need to "protect" DPW. CYS was a county service. Further, what conservative Republican would want to protect a group of bureaucrats, that are mostly Democrats.

No offense! I did say it didn't fly with me either....just happened to find this article and brought it for discussion....

 

[nittanylioness234]

Just found this article about how State College police and Penn State Police Services investigate rape and sexual abuse charges, even without a victim's cooperation. Gricar is mentioned:

Once victims have reported an instance of sexual assault to police, they do not have to press charges, but Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar may prosecute without their cooperation.


"If I thought the (assailant) was a threat to the community at large, I would try to persuade the victim to cooperate," Gricar said.


Circumstances surrounding the assault would influence Gricar's decision to try the case, including physical evidence, the relationship of the victim and assailant and any other corroborating evidence.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1998/11/11-05-98tdc/11-05-98dnews-3.asp


...and notice the date of the article - 11/05/98, shortly after the mysterious 10/13/98 meeting in the Lasch building. Coincidence?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just found this article about how State College police and Penn State Police Services investigate rape and sexual abuse charges, even without a victim's cooperation. Gricar is mentioned:

Once victims have reported an instance of sexual assault to police, they do not have to press charges, but Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar may prosecute without their cooperation.


"If I thought the (assailant) was a threat to the community at large, I would try to persuade the victim to cooperate," Gricar said.


Circumstances surrounding the assault would influence Gricar's decision to try the case, including physical evidence, the relationship of the victim and assailant and any other corroborating evidence.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1998/11/11-05-98tdc/11-05-98dnews-3.asp


...and notice the date of the article - 11/11/98, shortly after the mysterious 10/13/98 meeting in the Lasch building. Coincidence?

I have seen this before. It is quite ironic, since the victim/mother did push for this, there were two victims, and an admission from Sandusky.

 

[nittanylioness234]

I was just looking at the conglomeration of things in this article, and the piece on Harmon's retirement caught my eye. I found it interesting that he announced his retirement shortly after Gricar disappeared...Possible connection?

In any event, I find Harmon interesting for a variety of reasons, and wonder if he committed perjury himself when he said he was unaware that psychologists had made reports in 1998. I believe he told Schreffler to close the investigation, and he made sure to file the 1998 report away in a strange way - why?

http://media.sportsbybrooks.com/201...epolicechieflied1998sanduskyinvestigation.pdf