Thursday, January 31

Who really failed to "report" the 2001 incident?

In the rush to judgment of PSU officials, many believed that Sandusky getting cleared in 1998 resulted in PSU officials thinking 2001 was a repeat of the prior incident.   However, few have considered the same could be said for CYS and DPW officials, who had been lulled into complacency about Sandusky for decades.

By
Ray Blehar

There are two major problems with the allegations that PSU officials didn't report Sandusky to authorities in 2001.   The first, and most obvious problem, is that under the law, PSU officials DID report it to the proper authorities.  In fact, they did it twice.  The second problem is that no one has considered that the PSU report was ignored by authorities.

Report to CYS
Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney recalled reporting the incident to Children and Youth Services. Schultz's statement is on page 213 of the Preliminary Perjury hearing transcripts, while Courtney's is on page 84 of the Freeh Report.

For some reason, these reports were immediately discounted because PSU didn't report the incident to DPW.  Legally, a report to DPW is not required if a report was made to CYS.  CYS has the responsibility, once notified, to file an abuse report with ChildLine.

Despite the Freeh team spending nine months on the PSU campus, there is no indication in the Freeh Report that the team took any investigative steps to determine if that report occurred.  Certainly, a group that allegedly could pin point the exact date and time of an internet search conducted 11 years prior (to find the chair of Second Mile) should have the wherewithal to check some phone records at PSU or CYS or check call logs to determine if a report was made.  

But those investigative steps weren't taken.

Also, few have considered that the OAG investigator did not check to see if a report was made in 2001.  Detective Anthony Sassano stated at the Preliminary Perjury hearing that he contacted CYS and DPW to check on a 2002 report of abuse.   Sassano indicated the agency officials answered negatively, however,  Sassano also stated that DPW had a record of the incident in its possession.  At some point, the Commonwealth expunged this record, but it appears the record survived at least until Sassano made the inquiry.  

Given the above, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that Schultz and/or Courtney did not make the report.  That's a tall order because the state can only rely on the testimony of the DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro (who is not a reliable witness) and Carol Smith, a CYS official who has every reason to want to shift the blame for Sandusky on PSU after her agency's miserable performance in 1998.

Report to The Second Mile
It is well documented and insdisputable that PSU made a report of the 2001 incident to The Second Mile.  Bruce Heim, a board member of the charity, stated he considered it a non-incident because he knew that Sandusky showered with children frequently.  Heim told Raykovitz not to report the incident to The Second Mile Board.

The Pennsylvania law on the books at the time of the incident required that PSU officials either make a report or cause an incident to be reported.  Considering that The Second Mile was responsible for the welfare of the child in question in the 2001 incident, and that Sandusky was an employee under contract of The Second Mile, it is beyond dispute that The Second Mile should have reported the incident.

No one, except one person, involved in the reporting of the incident at PSU could be considered a mandated reporter under the law.  A mandated reporter must come in contact with children as part of their professional duties.  Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley were in positions where they were not required to interact with minors.  The only person in the employment of PSU in 2001 who may have had interactions with children, as part of his job duties, was Mike McQueary.  McQueary had this interaction through his work at youth sports camps.

Complacency
Many have opined that PSU officials may have went soft on Sandusky because of the previous investigation of him in 1998 that resulted in no charges.  I think that is a plausible explanation.  Why pull in the police and the child welfare caseworkers for another investigation of a likely similar incident?  Just tell Sandusky to knock off the showering with kids and have The Second Mile get him some help with this "quirky" behavior.   

And while Second Mile is at it, send Bruce Heim to class with Jerry because Heim didn't think there was anything wrong with Jerry's behavior.

However, few have considered the complacency that was even more likely to have set in at CYS and DPW.

Consider that Sandusky successfully navigated the system's various background checks to become the adoptive father of five sons and a daughter, a foster parent, a host for a half-dozen Fresh Air Fund children from New York City and a congressional honoree as an "Angel in Adoption."

Court records also show Sandusky and his wife, Dottie, were designated to coordinate visits with his grandchildren in 2010 when one son's marriage began to disintegrate.

Pennsylvania laws require that licensed social workers screen prospective families through a number of nets, including FBI checks and child abuse clearances. Prospective parents undergo reference checks, interviews and a medical report that asks a physician to certify that an individual is mentally and physically prepared to be a parent. 

Therefore state (DPW) and county (CYS) officials had been dealing with the Sandusky's for decades prior to the 1998 incident to conduct the screenings for he and Dottie as adoptive and foster parents.  Those agencies had given the "green light" to the Sanduskys on numerous occasions, thus had little reason to suspect anything untoward about Jerry Sandusky.  

Their confidence about the "goodness" of Sandusky was evident in the notes from the 1998 investigation.  The caseworker from CYS, John Miller, despite having knowledge of numerous signs of possible child sexual abuse, possessing a damning psychological report, and being alerted to other possible victims was unsure about pressing forward with the investigation.  He called a meeting at CYS for them to "decide what to do."

As police records reveal, CYS procured John Seasock (at the request of DPW) to conduct a second evaluation of one of the children who were the subjects of the investigation in 1998.   This evaluation was done over  the objections of ADA Karen Arnold and University Park Police Detective Ronald Schreffler.  Seasock's evaluation stated Sandusky was not exhibiting any signs of possible sexual abuse and the 1998 investigation was effectively ended.

Given what transpired in 1998, it is certainly possible that CYS simply decided not to investigate the report of a similar sounding incident that was reported to them in 2001.

If anyone had a reason to be complacent about Jerry Sandusky, it was the child welfare officials who had approved him as an adoptive and foster parent for decades.






23 comments:

  1. Sir every bit of your information is spot on, but I have one other thought. If Spanier was the head of PSU under PA statute 42.42 he was the only one that Curley, and Schultz had to tell. Since Spanier knew there is no longer a cover-up it is just Spanier failing to do his job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Under the law you cited, PSU didn't have to report the 2001 incident to anyone other than The Second Mile. The wording of the statute that was in effect at the time states that a report must be made if the child is in the care of the person told about the incident. That is why Dranov would not be required to report the incident. Neither would Spanier, because the child was not on PSU's campus in any PSU sanctioned event (camp) and Sandusky was not an employee of PSU.

      Delete
  2. Where have you seen evidence of testimony that "Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney recalled reporting the incident to Children and Youth Services." I specifically remember testimony of the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See page 213 of the preliminary perjury hearing transcripts. Schultz states that he recalled the incident being reported to the "child protection agency" and states it was the same on that investigated the 1998 incident. Courtney wrote an e-mail to Cynthia Baldwin stating he recalled CYS being contacted (page 84).

      Delete
  3. "Report to Second Mile:
    It is well documented and indisputable that PSU made a report of the 2001 incident to The Second Mile. Bruce Heim, a board member of the charity, stated he considered it a non-incident because he knew that Sandusky showered with children frequently. Heim told Raykovitz not to report the incident to The Second Mile Board or to authorities."

    I have been shouting about the above for a year now. This entire tragedy is about unauthorized, unfettered, individual access to minors. Had only the Officials at The Second Mile INSIST that their founder & figurehead comport himself above and beyond ANY whiff of impropriety. The simple fact that Sandusky was so easily able to access minors' confidential contact information from Second Mile offices absolutely blows my mind. No parental waivers or permission forms, no follow up. Just sloppy and careless with no thought as to Custody, Care and Control.

    Also, who is Heim to overule the CEO of this agency? Jack is a Mandatory Reporter, a licensed professional, maintains a practice in town, and has a duty to these kids to do the right thing.

    This is beyond depressing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree, Wendy. The Second Mile was, at best, asleep at the controls and, at worst, being a pedophile enabler.

      Delete
  4. The 2nd Mile continued to wrap this in a veil of secrecy even beyond the time frame that they fired him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point. Everyone's favorite Pulitzer Prize winner wrote that TSM concealed the 2008 incident from its own Board, yet no one considers this a cover-up by Second Mile. TSM had more to lose in this than Penn State did. The PSU cover-up story becomes more ludicrous with each passing day (and blogpost).

      Thanks, Misder2

      Delete
  5. Thanks Ray. Any news on when trials might happen? What's the hold up? Any truth to chance they might be thrown out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Kathleen Kane's investigation into the Sandusky investigation will result in all charges being dropped...and maybe some new charges against other people outside of PSU.

      Delete
  6. WOW@No one, except one person, involved in the reporting of the incident at PSU should be considered a mandated reporter under the law. A mandated reporter must come in contact with children as part of their professional duties. Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley were in positions where they were not required to interact with minors. The only person in the employment of PSU in 2001 who had interactions with children, as part of his job duties, was -- Mike McQueary. McQueary had this interaction through his work at youth sports camps.

    And: It is well documented and insdisputable that PSU made a report of the 2001 incident to The Second Mile. Bruce Heim, a board member of the charity, stated he considered it a non-incident because he knew that Sandusky showered with children frequently. Heim told Raykovitz not to report the incident to The Second Mile Board.....

    Thank you and this blog for all you have done in reporting all of this. As others have said, it's all about protecting children in the near future and this blog has brought a lot of light into the negligence that DPW and CYS in Penn. shown at that time which led to the tragedies that happened with Sandusky.

    It is also a tragedy that the MSM hasn't even tried to dig deep into TSM the way that this blog has. Thank you for all you do and I can't wait for your other reports.

    ReplyDelete
  7. All I know is, if Lauro/Seasock would have reported Sandusky's name to the Statewide Central Register in 1998 as mandated by section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 3490.36 (relating to providing information to the county agency), Sandusky’s name would have appeared for any future suspected child abuse complaints and this fiasco might not have happened...…

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ray, you are doing some excellent work here and I thank you for taking so much of your time to educate the rest of us.

    I think this seals it, as far as the PSU situation goes. If they can prove that Schultz notified CYS and TSM about the 2001 incident, the circle is complete, CASE CLOSED. You have already established that 1998 was a botched investigation by DPW and CYS. It now looks like 2001, an incident that never REALLY happened, was told to Paterno, then to Curley and Schultz, and finally reported back to proper authorities. The PSU alum and die hard fan in me wants to shout it from the rooftops, call 60 minutes and other mass media to inform the general public about all the fallacies, then pressure the NCAA to reverse the sanctions, dust off the Paterno statue from storage and go on like everything is back to normal.

    But, that will never be the case. Restoring Paterno and PSU's once stellar reputation alone will never fix what is the real problem here. Your blog has uncovered MASSIVE failures on the part of many public authorities who's mandate is to protect our children. From indifference to ignorance to incompetance and complacency, many of these employees mentioned in previous posts are derelict in their duties. If this is how they step up for a "high profile case" how do they perform their jobs day in day out? I'm really hoping that there aren't multiple examples of Sandusky-type stories going on out there yet to be discovered due to similarly lacking protective agency employees.

    I am positive that Paterno and PSU's legacy will be restored in due time, all the evidence points to that. The media loves to bring you down, but they also love to bring you back up. I can only hope, that with the flip side of the PSU comeback story is the story of just how Sandusky was able to gain unfettered access to children. I hope certain people are called out, by name, and made accountable. As in Lauro's case, I hope people with his performance record aren't out there teaching classes and seminars to new caseworkers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " It now looks like 2001, an incident that never REALLY happened, was told to Paterno, then to Curley and Schultz, and finally reported back to proper authorities."

      This is where you start to lose me. 2001 happened. The question should be "What was said, to whom, when?"

      Delete
    2. I think what Kurt is saying is the "extremely sexual" incident never happened. I agree something happened and McQueary reported the something (or as you say, "what was said, to whom, when?"

      Thanks again, Misder2

      Delete
    3. Maybe I'm lost in the semantics. The "extremely sexual" did happen in 2001. It just wasn't conveyed as "extremely sexual", that happened later.

      Delete
    4. Not according to Victim 2...he was in the shower and said nothing happened.

      Delete
    5. This comes back to my previous question about somehow requiring McQueary to describe what he ACTUALLY saw and heard. If his testimony later was to something more than or different from his actual experience, Kane may be able to dig into who influenced this later testimony.

      Delete
    6. "Not according to Victim 2...he was in the shower and said nothing happened."

      Don't focus on that

      Delete
    7. You seemed to be focused on it earlier, stating that "extremely sexual" happened. The victim said it didn't happen (until he lawyered up and then became useless to the prosecution and defense).

      Anyway, I'm not overly concerned about it. There are bigger issues at play than what McQueary said.

      Delete
  9. Now, without a doubt if it is proven that it was reported to CYS, then apologies would be due all around and all reputations should be restored. After all, if this was reported to child services, any claim of a cover up or even that they did not do the right thing kind of goes away. It would have been reported to the authorities.

    My question though is, outside of Shultz's own word, and the testimony of Courtney (although I could not find his testimony in the preliminary hearing transcript), do you know of any hard evidence (phone records, CYS report, etc) or anything else that indicates that it was actually reported to CYS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither side can produce evidence of a contact or lack thereof. At least, I've not heard of any hard evidence being produced. Just testimony on both sides and Courtney's e-mail.

      Delete