The 1998 Investigation

[Reader]

nittanylioness234;8266648]...And this meeting is what brought me to Websleuths in the first place. When I googled all the names together to see if I could find out what they were meeting about, it led me to the Gricar thread at Websleuths! Maybe there was another Sandusky incident at this time, so all the people reunited to discuss the issue...and it was at Lasch, so Ganter could say, "...and here's right where it happened..."

...And thanks, Big Cat, for starting this thread...I have a feeling if we can figure out what happened in 1998, we can understand 2001 better.

...J.J., in your timeline, above, you indicate that Lauro picked up the Chambers report, but it was Schreffler, the reporting officer, who picked it up. Lauro has stated that he never knew about the Chambers report. But as J.J. has pointed out, he should have know it existed since it was mentioned in the police report...if he got that particular page.

I really want to see those missing pages, and I really want to know what happened in October, 1998...

Definitely Schreffler picked up the Chambers Report. Sorry about that.

What I'm wondering is if at that 10/13/98 meeting, RFG basically told them that he wouldn't prosecute Sandusky "if he received help for the problem."

BBMs:

I'm thinking you are correct about a new incident being discussed since the first one had been closed back in June, unless they were talking about reopening it and adding the new incident...2 would be better than 1 for prosecuting...

Same here on those missing pages...from every copy I've seen..and they are the 2 between Scheffler/Lauro interviewing JS and Scheffler closing the case...I'm thinking the record shows some discussion about this decision with Gricar? Harmon? JS? Schultz? the mother?

If there was a discussion about a new incident, maybe Gricar was telling Ganter and the detectives what proof he would require before filing any charges...I'm sure with Sandusky's status and standing in the community he would want to be absolutely sure and do it right the first time...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

[/B]

BBMs:

I'm thinking you are correct about a new incident being discussed since the first one had been closed back in June, unless they were talking about reopening it and adding the new incident...2 would be better than 1 for prosecuting...

Same here on those missing pages...from every copy I've seen..and they are the 2 between Scheffler/Lauro interviewing JS and Scheffler closing the case...I'm thinking the record shows some discussion about this decision with Gricar? Harmon? JS? Schultz? the mother?

If there was a discussion about a new incident, maybe Gricar was telling Ganter and the detectives what proof he would require before filing any charges...I'm sure with Sandusky's status and standing in the community he would want to be absolutely sure and do it right the first time...

Schreffler said that there was no interference from the administration at Penn State and Schultz had to contact Harmon.

We know that the "I wish I was dead" is one of those things not released, along with the calls to Gricar. There was no known new incident and Schultz's e-mail in 2001 point to just one incident.

It might have been a discussion about Victim 6 and B.K.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Schreffler said that there was no interference from the administration at Penn State and Schultz had to contact Harmon.

We know that the "I wish I was dead" is one of those things not released, along with the calls to Gricar. There was no known new incident and Schultz's e-mail in 2001 point to just one incident.

It might have been a discussion about Victim 6 and B.K.

But why talk about it 4 months after the case is closed?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

But why talk about it 4 months after the case is closed?

What if the message was that RFG wouldn't prosecute if Sandusky "received help for the problem," hypothetically.

 

[Rlaub44]

What if the message was that RFG wouldn't prosecute if Sandusky "received help for the problem," hypothetically.

I'd be curious to know why we haven't heard anything from Schreffler, Ganter, etc. if this meeting was in any way related to Sandusky. WSers can't be the only ones to be asking questions about this, and now that Paterno and presumably Gricar are dead, it can't be about protecting anyone's legacy any longer.

I hate loose ends!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'd be curious to know why we haven't heard anything from Schreffler, Ganter, etc. if this meeting was in any way related to Sandusky. WSers can't be the only ones to be asking questions about this, and now that Paterno and presumably Gricar are dead, it can't be about protecting anyone's legacy any longer.

I hate loose ends!

Sloane, who brought the meeting to Ganim's attention, said he couldn't remember the purpose.

You still have people talking about the legacies of both. Some people are more concerned about Gricar's legacy than if he was murdered.

 

[BigCat]

I'd be curious to know why we haven't heard anything from Schreffler, Ganter, etc. if this meeting was in any way related to Sandusky. WSers can't be the only ones to be asking questions about this, and now that Paterno and presumably Gricar are dead, it can't be about protecting anyone's legacy any longer.

I hate loose ends!

It's not uncommon for the football staff and local law enforcement to have a close relationship in a football-crazy college town. Both would prefer to keep the bad behavior of the players out of the news. The community demands it. Fans don't want LE "picking on" the players (I've heard that complaint repeatedly in my college town). Coaches would prefer to handle player discipline "in house." Public safety is less important than winning football games.

In the case of Penn State, Paterno arrived at Penn State in 1950; Sandusky in 66; Ganter in 67; Tom Bradley in 75. That kind of retention of coaches is unheard of in today's games. The average stay of a coach at one university is probably 3 to 4 years, tops. So I don't think there is any question that the PSU coaching staff had solid contacts within local law enforcement. They had worked together for decades.

As for the local DA going to the "football building" to meet an assistant football coach, I would think that such a meeting would be rather extraordinary.

If the meeting wasn't related to Sandusky, what could they have been meeting about? Did they meet regularly? Was one of Ganter's players in trouble with LE?

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It's not uncommon for the football staff and local law enforcement to have a close relationship in a football-crazy college town. Both would prefer to keep the bad behavior of the players out of the news. The community demands it. Fans don't want LE "picking on" the players (I've heard that complaint repeatedly in my college town). Coaches would prefer to handle player discipline "in house." Public safety is less important than winning football games.

Respectfully snipped (and I'm going to agree with your points).

As for the local DA going to the "football building" to meet an assistant football coach, I would think that such a meeting would be rather extraordinary.

If the meeting wasn't related to Sandusky, what could they have been meeting about? Did they meet regularly? Was one of Ganter's players in trouble with LE?

First, they obviously would interact. These are basically powerful executives in the local business that has dealings with LE. Much of it would not be conducted in person, or outside of the office.

What I find extraordinary is who was there. Ralston was not part of the University Police. He was with the State College Police, a different jurisdiction. If it was something dealing with a football player that happened in the Borough of State College, and off campus, why is Schreffler there? If it was something broad, like a new policy, or discussing security arrangements, why isn't Harmon or Schultz there?

We have five people at this meeting. Three were directly involved in the Victim 6 investigation. The fourth is a close confidant of Gricar, an ADA that he worked with closely, who is also an alumnus. The fifth is part of the same department as Sandusky. The meeting is taking place at that department.

Maybe it's nothing, but sure raises some red flags, not to mention red flairs.

 

[Rlaub44]

What if the message was that RFG wouldn't prosecute if Sandusky "received help for the problem," hypothetically.

The more I think about this, I don't think this is possible.

First, we have discussed before the fact that they met with Ganter, not Paterno or administration. Some have speculated that Ganter was the go-between (if you wanted to get a message to Paterno, you talked with Ganter), but I can't imagine the local DA, who was not fond of PSU football by all accounts and yet was apparently trying to do them a favor in this scenario, playing along and delivering this crucial, confidential message to a lackey who was Sandusky's colleague and not a supervisor.

Second, Schreffler himself testified: "I thought some charges should have been filed. I respected Ray Gricar as a prosecutor but I don't know why charges weren't filed."
http://pahomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=255352

It seems like his testimony would have included a lie by omission, as if he were present at such a meeting, he would have known why Gricar chose not to press charges. I can't imagine Schreffler not having notes from that meeting to remember why they met, and likewise I see no reson for him to potentially perjure himself and risk his career with Homeland Security.

I think if the meeting were related to Sandusky, perhaps Ganter himself contacted police with a concern, and because of the history, all three agencies (Univ. police, State College police, and DA) responded together. Or the meeting was unrelated to Sandusky - remember that this was months after the investigation was reportedly closed by all accounts. Sloane's dictation said:
“Oct. 13, 1998. Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, Gricar. Investigation going to Penn State meeting. Ray. Fran Ganter. Ron Schreffler is taking us to the football building and I will finish this memo, Sue, and either Ray will type something, handwrite something or he’ll tell me to dictate this and I’ll give you the tape when we get back. Thanks.”
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/ray_gricar_mystery.html

The part I bolded would indicate to me that the case would have to still be under investigation at that time. There just seems to be too many reasons why it wasn't a warning or deal from Gricar.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I don't know if the meeting was about Sandusky, but I wouldn't be surprised if a message wasn't sent.

The first time I heard about any dislike between Gricar and Sandusky or Penn State was after 11/5/11.

 

[BigCat]

Schreffler said that there was no interference from the administration at Penn State and Schultz had to contact Harmon.

We know that the "I wish I was dead" is one of those things not released, along with the calls to Gricar. There was no known new incident and Schultz's e-mail in 2001 point to just one incident.

It might have been a discussion about Victim 6 and B.K.

What do you mean by not released? Does a transcript of the "I wish I were dead" conversation exist?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What do you mean by not released? Does a transcript of the "I wish I were dead" conversation exist?

All of that was in the police report, but there is no suggestion that Schultz, Spanier, Curley or Paterno ever saw those. The grand jury had it in 2011, but there was no suggestion that the any of the Big Four had it in 1998.

 

[BigCat]

All of that was in the police report, but there is no suggestion that Schultz, Spanier, Curley or Paterno ever saw those. The grand jury had it in 2011, but there was no suggestion that the any of the Big Four had it in 1998.

When Harmon updated Schultz on the 14th, he doesn't mention the sting operation, even though the first one occurred the day before. Nor does he mention either sting operation in his summary email to Schultz. Kind of odd, I think.

Schultz should have definitely known about both conversations between Sandusky and the mother in 2001, after he reviewed the 98 file.

Another note: Ralston's only function in the investigation was to accompany Schreffler during the sting operations (victim 6 and his mother lived in Ralston's jurisdiction). Why was he included in the meeting on Oct 13th? What Ralston overheard during the sting operations, especially the second one, was pretty incriminating; perhaps Gricar wanted him to hear the warning issued to Ganter, so Ralston wouldn't get the impression the allegation was swepted under the rug.

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

When Harmon updated Schultz on the 14th, he doesn't mention the sting operation, even though the first one occurred the day before. Nor does he mention either sting operation in his summary email to Schultz. Kind of odd, I think.

It might not have been reported to Harmon yet. Or, Harmon was just giving a timeline and not the details of what was being found.

Schultz should have definitely known about both conversations between Sandusky and the mother in 2001, after he reviewed the 98 file.

I was thinking about 1998; once that file was opened, everything should have been known.

Another note: Ralston's only function in the investigation was to accompany Schreffler during the sting operations (victim 6 and his mother lived in Ralston's jurisdiction). Why was he included in the meeting on Oct 13th? What Ralston overheard during the sting operations, especially the second one, was pretty incriminating; perhaps Gricar wanted him to hear the warning issued to Ganter, so Ralston wouldn't get the impression the allegation was swepted under the rug.

JMO

We're not sure that this meeting was about Sandusky, but Ralston being there would make it a huge coincidence.

 

[nittanylioness234]

The first time I heard about any dislike between Gricar and Sandusky or Penn State was after 11/5/11.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Source?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Interesting. Source?

Tony Gricar, in the aftermath of the report. RFG would go to tailgates, so his animosity wasn't that great.

The only complaints that I ever heard of RFG, prior to the Sandusky scandal, was about the "crazy football fans," but not about the University, or any of its personnel.

 

[BigCat]

Tony Gricar, in the aftermath of the report. RFG would go to tailgates, so his animosity wasn't that great.

The only complaints that I ever heard of RFG, prior to the Sandusky scandal, was about the "crazy football fans," but not about the University, or any of its personnel.

Unfortunately, those "crazy football fans" were his constituents.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Unfortunately, those "crazy football fans" were his constituents.

Some, but not all.

 

[BigCat]

Another aspect of the 98 investigation I haven't seen discussed much is the following note in Seasock's report (pg 5 http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf)

7. Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility.

Pedophiles don't shower with their victims in public, according to Seasock. But we know Sandusky did. Victim 4 testified that assistant coaches Dick Anderson, Fran Ganter, and Tom Bradly all took showers with him and Sandusky. Victim 4 suspected Bradley even waited around on at least one occasion until he and Sandusky left the shower.

So who was this other coach in 98 and did Schreffler and/or Lauro ever interview him?

 

[Rlaub44]

Another aspect of the 98 investigation I haven't seen discussed much is the following note in Seasock's report (pg 5 http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf)



Pedophiles don't shower with their victims in public, according to Seasock. But we know Sandusky did. Victim 4 testified that assistant coaches Dick Anderson, Fran Ganter, and Tom Bradly all took showers with him and Sandusky. Victim 4 suspected Bradley even waited around on at least one occasion until he and Sandusky left the shower.

So who was this other coach in 98 and did Schreffler and/or Lauro ever interview him?

Color me confused. Seasock stated that after his interview, he had opportunity to read previous interviews done thru the police and Children and Youth. Which interview found that another coach was present? Could this be how Ganter's name comes in, leading to the October interview?