The Failure to Report Child Abuse Ruse in the Sandusky Case

The Office of Attorney General, Penn State, Louis Freeh, and so-called victim's advocates want the public to believe Sandusky roamed the streets because of a failure to report in 2001 - and a lot of money changed hands to promote that false narrative.

By
Ray Blehar

The fake investigation conducted by Louis Freeh concluded with a well choreographed press conference, where a computer glitch that was planned in advance kept the full text of the report out of everyone's hands.  However, one of the other well choreographed parts of the presser was that Louis Freeh stood in front of a large screen with the telephone number of ChildLine projected on it.

The message was being sent that the Sandusky Scandal hinged on a failure to report abuse in 2001.

Ironically, Chapter 8 of the Freeh Report, which cited the Pennsylvania child abuse reporting statute made NO FINDING that PSU officials failed to report abuse.  I found that very curious from my first review of the Freeh Report back in July, yet no one else seemed to ever ask the question how a report so damning to PSU could not make that finding.

The answer is very simple; there is no credible evidence to support that finding.

To quote Louis Freeh, the "best they could muster" was a non-specific, unauthenticated e-mail, which we have since learned was not from a forensic hard drive, but from a DVD supplied to the OAG nearly one year after the forensic evidence was turned over by Penn State.   While there was language in the e-mail regarding being "vulnerable for not reporting," it certainly is not clear if those words were typed by Graham Spanier or by someone pretending to be Graham Spanier.  Also, there is more evidence - in the form of testimony and statements - that child welfare was contacted in 2001 than there is to the contrary.

However, PSU paid $8.8 million dollars at last count for Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan (FSS) and their PR fim, Kekst,  to put on a show that would fool the public into believing this case was about a failure to report child abuse.

Freeh's  "dog and pony show" would also fool the public into believing the firing of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier was justified because these men concealed Sandusky's crimes for 14 years, dating back to 1998.  Not only that, but Freeh said there were "red flags all over the place" that should have caused PSU to suspect Sandusky's abuse.

Ironically, the 1998 investigation was conducted by Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare officials, who, based on the evidence overlooked many "red flags" of possible child sex abuse.  Those signs were chronicled in this blog post and the investigation was fully exposed as a failure in Report 1.  In addition, Report 1 also showed Freeh did his best to cover for DPW by omitting critical evidence that would have revealed how badly DPW botched the investigation.


The Attorney General's Failure to Report Ruse

The attorney general's failure to report ruse actually began with the factually challenged grand jury presentment. 

The presentment told a tale of PSU officials getting a graphic report of a molestation and then reporting the incident to the Executive Director of The Second Mile (TSM), who stated under oath that he did not report it because he was told it was fully investigated by Penn State and there was nothing there.

The presentment didn't tell the public that Dr. Jack Raykovitz was a licensed psychologist and mandatory reporter of child abuse.  Thus the public was led to believe that the PSU
Athletic Director's advice on the incident to TSM gave them cause to not report it.

However, the theatrics came into play at the press conference announcing the Sandusky charges, which featured two placards -- one of Sandusky, the alleged molester and a second placard featuring Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, charging them with perjury and failure to report.  The image was meant to tie the Sandusky scandal to Penn State and put the emphasis on failing to report abuse.

Call me cynical, but I tend to believe that TSM's campaign contributions to then AG Tom Corbett,  TSM's provision of children and youth programs across the state, and ties to PSU likely gave the charity a "get out of jail free card" in the Sandusky case.

State and County Failures
At the same time, the AG's grand jury presentment made no mention that TSM was required, by code, to be informed of the previous investigation of Sandusky in 1998.  TSM continues to deny knowing about the 1998 investigation to this day.  However, if we take TSM's word that they were not notified in 1998, then we must fault the Centre County Children and Youth Services office for not making the proper notifications in 1998.  Moreover, the police report made it clear that CYS did not take steps with TSM to protect children who were being accessed by Sandusky during the 1998 investigation.

These failures by CYS were not the only ones to occur in that investigation.  The police report also stated that a second child, who was a potential victim, was interviewed by CYS and the police without his mother or a parent present.  That was also a violation of the code.  Also, there was no evidence on the record that CYS attempted to contact the parent after the interview to inquire about her knowledge of the alleged abuse or if she would desire to file a complaint.  A Pulitzer prize winning (but factually challenged) article from the  Patriot News about the Sandusky grand jury,  stated the mother never asked her 10 year-old son about his interview with the police.   The article appears to confirm that CYS did not go back and talk with the mother after the initial interview with the child (BK).

The 1998 case was wrought with failures on the part of the Department of Public Welfare and CYS, yet the attorney general (in the grand jury presentment) said almost nothing about their respective roles in the 1998 investigation.

The Schultz file revealed that CYS, after the first day of the investigation, in which they learned of many signs of possible child sexual abuse, was "going to hold a meeting" to "decide what to do" on the morning of the second day of the investigation.  The record indicates they referred the investigation to DPW, who did a cursory review of the evidence, interviewed Sandusky, and closed their case.

However, after everything that happened in 1998, the public was led to believe that in 2001, if only PSU would have contacted child welfare, a sexual predator would have been taken off the streets.

That is truly laughable.

Given what we have learned about PA's child protection system over the last year, it is more likely that authorities were contacted and were simply more decisive about the case than in 1998.

They chose not to investigate the case -- immediately.

CYS likely rationalized that Sandusky was fully investigated in 1998.  He had been approved for foster parenthood and adoptions for two decades.  There was no reason to waste someone's time on an investigation.

The scenario above is more likely than Gary Schultz ignoring the advice of Wendell Courtney, who believed that someone at PSU contacted CYS after he had done legal research on the nature of the incident and conferenced with Schultz.

Penn State's and PCAR's Failure to Report Ruse

While I covered the phony Freeh investigation earlier in the blogpsot, PSU took another action to contaminate the public's opinion regarding child abuse reporting.

It provided a $1.5 million grant to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) to provide education about child abuse reporting to the public.  But the money did more than that.

While it is not clear if the contract was in place with PSU on 11-11-11, the Executive Director of PCAR (left, below), Delilah Rumburg, PCAR delivered a stinging indictment of Joe Paterno and PSU officials.

Ms. Rumberg's remarks about the Sandusky Scandal were typical of the many people who piled onto PSU without any of the facts during the initial days after the story broke and before any of the allegations were remotely close to being proven.

"All of the adults who knew, who suspected, who whispered in private, that failed to make those phone calls, also failed those little boys.  And now here is this frenzy, the national outrage, and the focus on the career of a football coach.  A pillar of this community, who held immense power and influence, and he chose to look away.  These things are disrespectful, insulting and shameful. 

Those little boys needed help and support back then. They are the victims of a incredibly devastating crime.  They kept silent all these years over whether they would be believed over a famous coach and the powerful institution."

As I heard this load of crap spewing from Ms. Rumberg, I was confused as to whether she believed Joe Paterno had actually committed the crimes.  I was also confused as to whether or not Ms. Rumberg was aware that Paterno had not been charged with failure to report. And the pillar of the community comment goes to show you just how out of touch Ms. Rumburg is about sexual abuse, considering that is the term used for offenders like Sandusky.

Also, how was it that Ms. Rumburg and PCAR managed to not make mention of TSM Executive Director, Dr. Jack Raykovitz or high ranking TSM board members in its message about adults looking the other way?

What came in the following month was what PSU really bought and paid for from PCAR.  PCAR ran a series of articles, again - before anything had been proven, about the "bystander approach" and PSU being "the mother of all teachable moments."

Quite frankly, the "mother of all teachable moments" in the Sandusky case is that if you have a lot of money and are willing to spend it, you can enlist the help of quasi-government officials (FSS and PCAR) to ensure that no one finds out about the truly poor record of Pennsylvania's child protection system and you can dupe the public into believing that a phone call would have stopped Sandusky.