Who Saved Sandusky in 1998? Part I

From Ray Blehar & Barry Bozeman - Exclusive from The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal

The first of a series in which SMSSS will expose who let Sandusky roam Freeh (pun intended) for 14 years.
.

Freeh’s mission, provided to him by the BOT, was to find of what PSU officials did wrong. That bias resulted in Freeh missing key evidence that shows DPW wanted to shut down the 1998 Sandusky investigation quickly.
.

The Freeh Report provides exhibits in Appendix 2 that show the flow of information from the University Park Police (Tom Harmon) to Gary Schultz to Tim Curley and Graham Spanier.  While Freeh’s conclusions and statements about this information are provably false (see the Who Is The Liar article), he and his teams most egregious error is not recognizing the most important piece of information in this chain of information.

.
Again, the reason Freeh and his team didn't find it is because he wasn't looking for it. This error is known as confirmatory bias, where analysts only look for information to support a hypothesis and throw out or ignore information that runs counter to the hypothesis.
.

This contrary evidence is in Exhibit 2B of the report in the e-mail from Harmon to Schultz just ten days into the 1998 investigation. Harmon relays to Schultz regarding DPW:

"I have been advised they want to resolve this quickly." 

Why would a child welfare agency want to resolve a child abuse investigation quickly?   Are they covering for Sandusky?  Or is somebody else pulling the strings?

The second critical piece of information -- also not put in the proper context by Freeh's team --  is Schultz’s handwritten note on May 5, 1998:

“Is this opening of Pandora’s box”  “Other Children”  

This is horrifying information. 

And when you go back and read Freeh's Executive Summary statement (page 16) stating that PSU officials had "a striking lack of empathy for child abuse," it really makes you sick to your stomach that PSU paid Freeh millions of dollars to conduct this investigation and he completely whiffed on identifying the real people - professional psychologists at DPW -- who KNEW they were closing in on a serial child molester and scuttled the investigation.

. 

It took me less than 5 minutes to do this analysis using the Grand Jury Presentment.  All I had to do was look at the time frames for the testimony of each victim. This results in victims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, B.K., and 10 in the1998 timeframe, allowing for some error in their memory of what year it was. In addition, the grand jury presentment states these boys "were in Sandusky's "circle" and that they "attended tailgates together." This means that in 1998, people who attended Sandusky's tailgates could possibly identify children in the circle.  And it is highly probable - almost a near certainty - that the two mothers of the children investigated in 1998 knew who were in their child's circle of friends. The fact that this investigation didn't go further to uncover the other victims is stunning.

.

What to do?

One last piece of interesting information from Schultz's 5/5 note is: "local child abuse people meeting at 9:00 today to decide what to do. Either way, casework felt they would interview Jerry."   

.

Three days into an investigation, with two children claiming they showered with Jerry, and with the knowledge (likely provided by the mothers or others) that there is a circle of boys around Sandusky, they aren't sure what to do next?
.

Reviewing the history of this scandal, the contemplation of what to do at the local youth charity sounds similar to that of school officials at Central Mountain High School.  When the mother of Victim 1, upon learning of Sandusky's abuse of her son, demanded they call the police, the officials told her to go home and think it over because Jerry had a heart of gold and does a lot of good. 

. 

Again, how does Freeh miss this? It has to be bias, by design, or willful ignorance.

 .

Shutting it down 

The e-mail to Harmon of 5/13/1998 states that the DPW or the local children's group wanted to resolve the matter quickly. The records indicate only two of the potential seven children in "Sandusky's circle" were interviewed.  Why? 
.
How could investigators have failed to interview Dr Raykovitz at The Second Mile and his staff to try to determine which other children were "close" with Sandusky and being granted "special favors"? They could then have had qualified child abuse specialists interview a number of 2M children to see if they were troubled by Sandusky's behavior. 
.
If you appreciate the fact that Dr. Raykovitz and his wife were the recipients of $233,000 in combined salaries from The Second Mile along with the perquisites of being CEO of a well respected charity it becomes easier to see how rationalization - the great good 2M is doing for hundreds - might outweigh any potential harm being done to a few by Sandusky. 
.

The DPW/CYS claim that the May 8, 1998 evaluation of Victim 6 by CYS Counselor Seasock on May 8, 1998 derailed the investigation. On May 13th and May 19th, the police attempted stings of Sandusky at the home of Victim 6. Neither sting resulted in Sandusky admitting to a criminal offense.  
.

And now we get to the missing data again.  Where are the psychiatric evaluations of the other boy in 1998 and where were those sting operations?  One theory is that Sandusky's image in the State College community at that time, influenced the DPW/CYS to shut it down upon receiving the answer that cleared him.  Or it could have been that the police did not want to spend resources after being unsuccessful with Victim 6. To know the answer to the latter, you'd have to ask police chief Tom Harmon.

.

Unfortunately, "Harmon, among others" were excluded from being interviewed by Freeh’s Special Investigative Committee per the request of AG Linda Kelly.  Why?

. 

Who are the others?  Our analysis is that the others are people who will provide information about how Sandusky slipped through law enforcement's fingers in 1998. Since Freeh never even spoke with McQueary, Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Wendell Courtney, Karen Arnold, Ray Gricar or Tom Harmon it becomes impossible to accept his fact Freeh fiction as definitive or complete. So why did Dr. Erickson and the Board of Trustees hand it to the NCAA as the valid investigation of wrong doing by Joe Paterno and Penn State? 

The SMSSS Weblog post 1998: So Close to an End for Sandusky - raised these questions based on direct evidence contained in the Freeh Report: 

1)Who authorized the switch from CYS (Centre Co. Child & Youth Services) to DPW (Pa Dept of Pub Welfare) in the 1998 Sandusky "victim 6" investigation? 
2) Who authorized CYS counselor Seasock to interview and evaluate victim 6? 
3) Who ordered the Seasock interview to be accepted over a Doctor of Psychology's evaluation that was very unfavorable to Jerry Sandusky?
4) Who suggested Louis Freeh to the Board of Trustees for a 6.5 million dollar payday and did they get what they paid for - since his report cost PSU 60 million off the top and untold millions in potential lost revenues. 
The coming posts in this series will supply the answers to these questions and will show that Penn State and Joe Paterno have basically been framed by the Freeh Report.   

PLEASE USE OUR FORUM IF YOU WISH ANSWERS OR A DISCUSSION OF YOUR COMMENTS CLICK HERE FOR ACCESS