Thursday, May 23

Did "Missing" Documents from the Schultz File Show DPW's Failure in 1998? (Part 2)

"Missing" documents from the Schultz file may have focused on Harmon's concerns about DPW's role in the 1998 investigation.

Ray Blehar

In the previous blog about the "missing" documents from the Schultz file regarding the 2001 incident, correspondence between Senior V-P for Business and Finance, Gary Schultz, and Police Chief Tom Harmon were not made public.

It is more of the same with the 1998 incident.

Confirmed "Missing" Documents

The Freeh Report contained a hand-full of references to documents and notes that should have been part of the Schultz file or the e-mail records, but were not made public or included in the Appendices of his report.

Control #00649354, Refs. 149 and 150:  This document provides information regarding Harmon's decision not to classify the incident as a crime or make a crime log entry.

Schultz Confidential File Note (5-1-12), Ref. 159:  Harmon provided Schultz with information about his concerns that DPW had conflicts of interest with The Second Mile.

May 8, 1998 e-mail, Harmon to Schultz (page 49 of Freeh Report):  Lauro "indicated that it was his intent to have a psychologist who specializes in child abuse interview the children.  This is expected to occur in the next week and a half.  I don't anticipate anything to be done until that happens."

The latter is an interesting piece of information because it is in conflict with the 1998 police report in several ways.  First, the e-mail contradicts the police report that stated  Lauro's supervisor (Richard Houston) ordered the investigation.  Next, the "psychologist," John Seasock, was not an expert in child abuse and worked with primarily adult offenders.  And, finally, Seasock only interviewed one of the children.

On May 13, 1998, 4:48PM,  Harmon e-mailed Schultz (Freeh Report Exhibit 2B)  to inform him that the interview with the child was complete.  There was no mention of the interview with the second child.  Harmon also stated in the e-mail that "they (DPW) want to resolve this quickly."

Suspected "Missing" Documents

Based on the 1998 investigation timeline and Tom Harmon's testimony at the Preliminary Perjury hearing (page 120), it is likely that at least two documents memorializing conversations between he and Gary Schultz are missing from the file.  

Harmon stated he had at least four phone conversations with Schultz regarding the 1998 incident, two of which likely occurred on May 4 and May 5 and are memorialized in Freeh Report Exhibits 2H and 2I, respectively.

Given Harmon's position as the Chief of police, it is highly probable that he telephoned Schultz after Schreffler conducted the two stings at the home of Victim 6.

Note memorializing conversation regarding May 13, 1998 sting.  Officer Schreffler and Detective Ralston hid in a adjoining rooms to listen to a conversation between the mother of Victim 6 and Sandusky.   The Freeh Report references this sting as Penn State Police Report 41-98-1609 at 14, however that is likely an incorrect citation because the summary of the May 13 sting is available on the public record.  The sting occurred around 4PM, thus it is likely that Harmon called Schultz later that evening to report on it.

Note memorializing conversation regarding May 19, 1998 sting.  Officer Schreffler and Detective Ralston again hid in adjoining rooms to between the mother of Victim 6 and Sandusky.  The Freeh Report references this sting as Penn State Police Report 41-98-1609 at 14, however that page is missing from the publicly available report.

A June 8, 1998 e-mail between Schultz and Harmon noted concerns over some aspects of the investigation. As noted earlier, one other document expressed concern about DPW's conflict of interest with The Second Mile, thus it is possible that this was an ongoing concern throughout the investigation.

 Moreover, the public record reveals no investigative activities by DPW or Centre County CYS from May 8 (the Seasock interview) until June 1 (the Sandusky interview).   It is also very possible that Harmon raised  concerns over the lack of activity or progress from the state and local agencies involved in his discussions of the stings with Schultz.

As noted in the previous blog post, it is probable that exculpatory evidence that cleared PSU officials in the 2001 incident was removed from the Schultz file.  It also appears that evidence indicating PSU officials were concerned about DPW's conflict of interest with The Second Mile and its slipshod 1998 investigation were also removed from the file.

I find it appalling that the former-Attorney General, Freeh, and/or the PSU officials may have removed evidence from the Schultz file in order to shield Pennsylvania's failing child protection agencies from criticism, and, in doing so, are keeping the Commonwealth's children at risk.


  1. No one has ferreted out and analyzed the facts as you have Ray. Without your dedication and keen intellect, much of this information would have remained hidden. Thanks again for all you do.

  2. *standing ovation w/loud applause and loud sound effects*...WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  3. OK. So PSU takes the fall for Sandusky being free to abuse for so many years. And somehow the blame is focused against PSU football, with very little ire aimed at PSU police.

    Two questions (likely addressed here previously... sorry):

    1. What has Harmon had to say this past ten months: for himself; and about this sole trashing of PSU?

    2. Exactly what would have been the potential conflicts of interest between DPW and TSM?

    1. 1. Harmon is a witness for the state and isn't talking.

      2. At a minimum, TSM was providing counseling and other services for at risk youth, relieving the taxpayer burden, so the state might have had incentive to keep TSM in business. I won't speculate beyond that.

  4. Given the detailed information available to Schultz and the questions asked regarding the DPW/TSM conflict of interest and shoddy investigation, it seems to me that the gateway for University liability passed directly through Schultz.

    PSU had the opportunity to ensure this was a DPW/Second Mile problem only by (proactively) barring Sandusky from campus in 1998 or (reactively) going ballistic in 2001.

    I realize these are speculative questions:
    1. Could Schultz have taken steps to reduce/remove PSU liability in 1998 and 2001?
    2. What rationale might Schultz have had for taking so little preventive action beyond a few meetings and phone calls?

    Keep up the outstanding work, Ray.

    1. Obviously I'm not Ray but I'd like to take a shot at this. Hopefuly Ray will chime in.

      1. 1998 - Sandusky was still a full member of the football coaching staff at the time so barring him from campus or even from using PSU facilities would have been impractical to say the least. PSU could have barred him from bringing his "guests" into the facilities, which was largely unenforceable, however the U-Park PD (Det. Ronald Schreffler) and the PA-DPW (Jerry Lauro) did advise Sandusky to stop showering with children to which he agreed. In light of the PA-DPW's and Centre County DA's inaction I don't see what more could have been done in 1998.
      2001 - by 2001 Sandusky had been granted Professor Emeritus status (Signed by Erickson, BTW) such that use of the facilities was one of his priveleges under that agreement. Schultz and the university would first have been required to remove Sandusky's emeritus status before barring him from use of the facitlites and would have been required to show just cause for that move, no small task, or else open the university up to legal action by Sandusky. It would seem that what McQueary told them, whatever it was, did not meet that requirement of just cause in Schultz's and Curley's mind. Again, PSU did demand that Sandusky stop bringing his "guests" into the facilities (again, largely unenforceable) and judging by the timeline of the crimes as laid out by Ray, this time he legitimately complied. So what is "going ballistic?" They did escalate the incident by reporting it to Sandusky's employers at the Second Mile. What more could they have done in going ballistic? Scream at the top of their lungs at Sandusky and Raykovitz? PSU/Schultz could have taken the additional step of reporting the incident to the PA-DPW and, to be frank, there is some evidence that someone (possibly Harmon) DID report the incident to DPW. They could also have opened a criminal investigation, and myabe they should have in perfect retrospect, but that's no small task in itself, could have entailed harrassament, and that tack had already ended in failure under similar circumstances in 1998.

      2. Hopefully the answer to that has been laid out in my asnwer to #1.

    2. Well thought out response. Thank you.

      [rhetorical]The toughest thing about assessing participants actions is that given the uncertainty of what was said, known, and speculated in 1998/2001, where does the Schultz response fall on the continuum of options: inadequate, minimum, reasonable, comprehensive, or maximum? [/Rhetorical]

      What was proved inadequate in 2012 could have been reasonable or comprehensive in 1998. This research helps set that context and I'm trying to grasp the scope of it.

    3. Good response, Mark. I'll add that many believe PSU should have not granted Sandusky emeritus status after the 1998 incident. That is, in a word, crazy. Sandusky probably would have sued PSU if they did that. PSU had no basis to do so, considering he was completely cleared in 1998. Also, one of the reasons he got to be emeritus was because PSU coaches are very underpaid compared to their coaching counterparts at other schools, thus PSU makes this up to them at retirement.

      As I've shown on the blog, there is evidence that DPW got a report of the 2001 incident. It's likely that Schultz contacted CYS to get the ball rolling. I will be writing a blog post on my interpretation of the Schultz file notes.

      Obviously, a must read :-)

      Thanks for your support!

  5. Ray,
    You have support and hopefully will force some changes. What you do is very much appreciated no matter what is discovered.