Monday, April 1

Mad Libs: Who was responsible for Sandusky's crimes


By
Wendy Sliverwood

Taken from page 5 of the Introduction of the Freeh Report:

“The evidence shows that ________________ also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower.  Again, ___________showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that ________________was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his ___________________for almost _______ years, and had an office just steps away from ___________.  At the very least, ___________ could have alerted the entire ______________ staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the _______________________________also failed to alert the _________________about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky.  ________________ even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct.

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity. “

…If we replace “Paterno” with other key individuals we can make some reasonable conclusions…

Alycia Chambers – State College Psychologist
The evidence shows that Ms. Chambers’ colleagues were made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an agent of the County by virtue of his adoptive & foster parent status, and had an office in a childrens’ charity just minutes away from Ms. Chambers office.  At the very least, Ms. Chambers could have alerted the entire Centre County CYS staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into his home. Ms Chambers and her colleagues also failed to alert The Second Mile Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Jack Raykovitz – CEO The Second Mile
The evidence shows that Jack Raykovitz was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an Executive Director of The Second Mile, and had an office just steps away from Dr. Raykovitz.  At the very least, Dr. Raykovitz could have alerted the entire Second Mile staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child to Second Mile events, outings and campsDr. Raykovitz also failed to alert CYS/DPW/Childline about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  Dr. Raykovitz instructed Sandusky to wear swimming trunks on future occasions when he showers with young boys.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity (while wearing swim trunks).

Child Protective Services
The evidence shows that Jerry Lauro and John Miller were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed reports with their agencies, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been the subject of abuse complaints by Debra Long (the natural mother of Matt Sandusky).  At the very least, Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller could have alerted The Second Mile in order to prevent Sandusky from one on one contact with children.  Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller also failed to alert the the Centre County courts about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct, even though Mr. Lauro was present at the Sandusky interview. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.


The University Park Police
The evidence shows that Tom Harmon and Ronald Schreffler were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed a police report about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a PSU employee for thirty years, and had an office on the PSU campus.  At the very least, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Shreffler could have alerted the entire University Park Police Department in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child onto campus.  Mr. Harmon and Mr. Schreffler also failed to alert the Pennsylvania state police about the 1998 investigation or takeany further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct other Schreffler telling him not to repeat the practice of showering with children.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

17 comments:

  1. Didn't the UP police and SC police conduct a sting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What bothers me, Mr. Verrnon, is that so many second guess the conclusion of no-crime 15 years ago. The sting, actually stings, show how willing the police were to go along with the speculations of a mother and Dr. Chambers. I wonder also how people cavalierly assume the two years of investigation by state authorities was incompetent. I believe that that investigation found nothing because nothing was there. Later accusations,in my opinion, are consistent with suggestion, intimidation, and greed. These factors played out in other community madness cases. In fact, Dr. Chambers uses Mr. Clemente's ready for expert testimony phrases. Keep in mind that 57 persons claimed to Mr. Feinberg did not tell on Sandusky while in the Second Mile program or, more importantly, after they aged out of the program. Assuming only a 10% chance that a victim would want to stop the horrors, the probability of all 57 keeping their secret is .002.

      I think the Paterno family erred in throwing Jerry Sandusky under the bus. The mental barrier to rationality goes like this: "Sandusky is guilty, Paterno knew Sandusky, therefore Paterno is guilty." See the CNN Piers Morgan interview of Mr. Ziegler.

      Delete
  2. Yes Gregory, they did. But the Centre County DA Ray Gricar did not prosecute, which is fodder for another post.

    Here's my point.

    You have licensed, trained professionals within the Child Welfare & Law Enforcement areas that were privy to FAR MORE information than Paterno supposedly ever was in 1998.

    These professionals ALL met their "legal obligations". However, it seems that Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity says Freeh...so did they meet their "moral obligations" with regards to protecting the best interests of our kids?

    If I apply the Frank Noonan/Louis Freeh/Lanny Davis Method Of Reasoning....NO. They ALL "could have done more".

    In my opinion, Freeh should have stopped once he got to 1998, if he had any investigative sense, and said to the Board of Trustees - "here's your problem: CYS & PaDPW botched 1998. The very system your state had in place to protect & serve these kids, absolutely failed these kids."

    If this was truly about "the children", then we would be asking more questions about these people. But we aren't. So it's not really about "the children" now is it?

    That's okay...Louis Freeh came down from Mt. Sinai with The Word etched into stone and we're Moving On. As Ken Frazier shouted at me, twice..."THERE ARE NO DO OVERS!".



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on, Wendy.

      Any legitimate investigator would have stopped the "responsibility" part of the investigation after evaluating the 1998 evidence. Freeh should have told PSU that he could not proceed due on that part and requested that the contract be reworked to only focus on PSU governance.

      Instead, Freeh took the $6.5M pay day and threw out the evidence that showed the state's and county's negligence in 1998.

      Delete
    2. There absolutely are do overs these days! The only question is how ugly things will get before the top-down powermongers accept the new paradigm...masses of educated, resourceful citizens worldwide are increasingly capable of exposing the injustices and replacing the good 'ol boys with open-minded, problem-solving, truly caring individuals.

      Stand your ground with Frazier, Wendy. And bless your heart...how incredibly frustrating this must be. I'm incensed, with no horse in the race!

      http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/30/4153075/ncaa-faces-a-crisis-of-confidence.html

      Delete
    3. Gricar didn't prosecute because he was undermined by DPW. Who in Harrisburg called that shot? Also think Lauro is lying about what he knew (or is admitting professional negligence).

      Delete
  3. Excellent, I still can not figure out why everything is pointing at Penn State and not the investigators. The Freeh Report is trash, For the BoT to use it as its Bible is beyond my understanding of what was the real problem.
    It continues to amaze me how people want to blame JoePa for everything!
    When is Frazier going to resign? He is an embarrassment to to PSU?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert - excellent question. This narrative of "PSU as the Villian" comes from somewhere.

      In Pennsylvania, we have systems in place to protect these kids. In 1998 all the key individuals were involved and the system activated (to the best of its ability) yet it seems to have failed.

      This is not a Football problem. This is not a Penn State problem. This is a State of Pennsylvania problem.

      Jim Clemente had it right when he implored us to look at the entire picture, look at ALL the individuals & entities involved. Unless we start asking the real questions and getting REAL ANSWERS, nothing's changed.

      Everyone's hair should be on fire about this.

      Delete
    2. I agree with everything that you have said. My question and only question is why did the BoT act so quickly for a situation that was going to bring the entire world down on their heads? With just alittle bit of thought they could have done a better job in analysing the situation. I wonder if there are other choices that they make contain the same amount of discussion to come to a majority vote.

      Delete
    3. Bob, good question. Ray does a great job providing us with honest-to-goodness information and analysis to open our eyes and minds.
      Do you think by chance the BoT was prepared for the report as ordered and acted as rehearsed. I am sure we all agree intelligent people generally selected to sit on various boards review all options before arriving at a decision. Haste is not one of their virtues.

      Delete
    4. They got exactly what they wanted and paid for. Justification for firing JoePa. There was NO real informaton because there are people who could not give their side of the story. I believe that the football program that I know has met or exceeded all the recommendations that were included in the report.
      Ray and John have done an outstanding job of bringing forward real info about the Sandusky story.

      Delete
    5. So what could have been more important to the governing body of PSU than the reputation and riches of PSU?

      It certainly was not the well-being of kids. If so, the PSU BoT would be leading your effort to learn why the 1998 investigation of Sandusky was dropped; why The Second Mile's investigation of itself was dropped; and why no one else is investigating Raykovitz, Genovese, TSM BoT, CYS, DPW, and Gricar's office.

      Delete
    6. It was not one of their priorities. If they had taken the time to investigate more instead of accept the freeh report maybe some of these would have more of the story and not the firing of JoePa.

      Delete
    7. There are many of us in the chemical profession who believe that Ken Frazier should be criminally prosecuted for his role in the Vioxx coverup. Frazier and Peppers Hamilton conducted what many scientists describe as a "campaign of lies, distortion, and intimidation" to defend their fraudulent data package submitted to FDA. Merke and Frazier knew Vioxx was dangerous. Over 40,000 people died as a result.

      If DPW is responsible for the investigation of child abuse, as PA law suggests, then they are responsible for the data package submitted to the DA. Lauro should have known everything generated in the investigation.

      Delete
  4. Help!!! The techies who set out to ensure Frazier's Wikipedia page includes his racist rant may want to edit The Second Mile's Wikipedia page (below).

    It actually discusses the Sandusky crimes under a major heading of "Penn State child sex abuse scandal". Then that section begins: "Main article: Penn State child sex abuse scandal"!!!???

    PLEASE can someone correct these two phrases, inserting Sandusky for Penn State, and referencing his trial??!!

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Mile#section_4

    I am beyond astounded at the audacity of The Second Mile. (And don't forget, as we speak they are petitioning to transfer to a Texas organization the RECORDS of the very programs used by Sandusky in these crimes.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Wiki-editor. Looking deeper just now, I found that a click on the last phrase of the first paragraph (JS convicted...) takes you to an entire Wiki page entitled "Penn State child sex abuse scandal"! Then, again, on the TSM Wiki page under External Links the entire section is headed "Penn State child sex abuse scandal". The External Links don't include the Sollers report, notpsu, and similar efforts.

      The Penn State Child Sex Abuse Wikipedia page could use a good do over! And a link to and from Kenneth Frazier's Wiki page seems reasonable.

      This has been some effort to pin the Sandusky crimes exclusively on Penn State. Wow.

      Delete
  5. The Second Mile Wikipedia page was edited an hour ago. It once again has a major heading entitled "Penn State child sex abuse scandal". Can the TSM page at least be labelled as in dispute??

    ReplyDelete