Tuesday, February 25

Do 'missing" witnesses in Sandusky case reveal a "Keystone Cover-Up?"

Were the "missing" witnesses at the Sandusky trial part of an effort to ensure no blame fell on DPW, CMHS, and  Second Mile officials?

Ray Blehar

Most intelligent observers of the Sandusky case believe that even though Sandusky was guilty of many, if not most, of the crimes he was charged with, something was not quite right about the trial.  

While the outcome was correct and Sandusky is where he belongs as a convicted sex offender, the manner in which the prosecutors and the defense teams went about putting on their cases left many people scratching their heads.  I noted many problems with the Victim 8 presentations - especially that an essential witness, Jay Witherite, didn't testify.  However, Witherite was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to "missing witnesses" in the Sandusky trial.

There were a lot of other witnesses who should have been called to make the case for the prosecution (P), but weren't called.  Similarly, some of the absences on the defense (D) side were equally puzzling.

But when you look at the list as a whole, one could conclude that witness selection was done to ensure that the Department of Public welfare (DPW), Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) Central Mountain High School (CMHS), and The Second Mile (TSM) got passes.  Also, it didn't look like Joe Amendola was playing his best cards if his hope was to get acquittals on at least some of the charges.

Missing Witnesses
Here's a list of the witnesses that were "no brainers;" we should have definitely heard from them at the trial.

Victim 1:  Dawn Daniels (P)*, Mike Gillum (P)**, Gerald Rosamilia (P), Karen Probst, CMHS (D), Steven Turchetta, CMHS (D)*

Victim 2:  Victim 2 (D), Dr. Jack Raykovitz, TSM (D)**,  Bruce Heim, TSM (D)

Victim 6: Dr. Alycia Chambers (P)**, the victim's mother (P)*/**, Jerry Lauro, DPW (D), John Seasock, CC CYS* (D), John Miller, CC CYS (D)

Victim 8: Jay Witherite (P)*, other janitors (P)

*on prosecutor's witness list
**on defense witness list

Mother's Intuition

In a child sexual abuse prosecution, one of the keys is to win the sympathy of the jury toward the victims.  As I documented in Report 3, prosecutor McGettigan excelled at this by painting the grown men who would testify as "little boys" who were helpless to fight back against the will of the molester.  From the comments of some of the jurors after the case, it was a very successful strategy.

Interestingly, McGettigan rarely used another powerful tool at his disposal to win the sympathy of the jurors:  the testimony of the mothers of the victims 1 and 6.

They were two mothers who reported crimes approximately ten years apart.  Both felt that sick feeling in their stomachs when their sons first mentioned the possibility of abuse. Both had to wait years to get justice.  Neither of them were presented as witnesses.

McGettigan called only the foster mother of Victim 10 and the mother of Victim 9 to testify in this case.  With regard to Victim 10, the purpose of the testimony was to establish that Victim 10 had contact with Sandusky and that the defendant had bought him shoes.  There was no mention of abuse nor did she mention anything that would have garnered sympathy from the jury.  Ironically, Joe Amendola ended up eliciting more damaging testimony from this mother than did McGettigan (and the same happened when he cross-examined Victim 10).

The mother of Victim 9 provided very little in the way of testimony that would have influenced the jury's decision.  The only notable things she mentioned under direct testimony were: picking her son up from Sandusky's home late one night when he was not wearing shoes; and that his underwear was missing from the laundry.  Similarly, Victim 9's mother did not mention anything about her son being abused, with the exception that she told a counselor and a teacher that Sandusky was "touchy feely."

Ironically, Joe Amendola elicited more harmful testimony than did prosecutor McGettigan during his cross-examination.  Rather than let sleeping dogs lie, Amendola brought up the point about missing underwear, to which the mother added that his socks were missing too.

Those were the only two mothers who testified at the trial.   Aaron Fisher's mother (Dawn Daniels) and the mother of Victim 6 were not presented as witnesses.

Both were complaining mothers who triggered investigations of Sandusky and both had compelling stories to tell that would have added credibility to the testimony of their sons.

Dawn Daniels
Dawn Daniels
Press reports and television interviews revealed that Dawn Daniels learned of her son Aaron Fisher's abuse when he was doing a search on the computer for "sex weirdos" and was looking to see if Jerry Sandusky was listed.  Daniels recalled getting a sinking feeling in the pit of her stomach.  Daniels was worried enough that she called his school the next day about it.  That was the day that Fisher broke down and told CMHS officials about his abuse.  According to Daniels, school principal Karen Probst told her to go home and think about it before deciding to report Sandusky.

Daniels went forward with the complaint to Clinton County Children and Youth Services, where Aaron was interviewed by psychologist Mike Gillum.  Daniels, Fisher, and Gillum then had to face a nearly three year battle with the PA OAG to finally get what they believed would be justice against Sandusky.  It is little wonder that McGettigan didn't want Daniels to testify.  Her testimony would have undoubtedly shone the spotlight on the footdragging by CMHS and the police investigators.

Mother of Victim 6
Contrary to popular belief, the mother of Victim 6 did not approve of her son's relationship with Sandusky.  You can find that evidence in Victim 6's trial transcript (page 23) where he stated:

"She - we differed on it, because I thought she was trying to get him in trouble and I became very defensive and would always talk light of him, you know, "Jerry is getting me tickets again." And she just always kept her mouth shut and I could always tell we just knew that we were on different pages."

In fact, sources close to the family revealed that the mother had cut off all one-on-one contact between her son and Jerry Sandusky.  Her son was only allowed to go to games if Jon or Matt Sandusky drove to pick him up and under the condition that there were other boys attending.

There is little doubt in my mind, that what she had to say about the abuse incident and the aftermath (as well as some other evidence not presented at the trial) would have influenced the jury to convict on the indecent assault charge with regard to her son's incident.

Based on the information in the 1998 police report, Schultz's notes from 1998, Victim 6's testimony, Dr. Chambers report, and my phone conversation with Chambers in October 2012, the initial incident was not at all as it has been reported.

As I noted in Report 1, the boys hair was DRY when he arrived home.  He then described his activities with Sandusky, describing how he got to try on Curtis Enis' shoulder pads and helmets.  He was given a pair of Joe Paterno socks, which he actually hugged in front of his mother.  The socks were a prized possession.
He was very upbeat and animated, but then his mood turned.

Next, he looked down at the floor at told his mother:

"..if you're wondering why my hair is wet, it's because we took a shower."

He then turned and ran to his bedroom, slamming the door behind him. Victim 6 testified that he told his mother what happened, then "I took off."

The mother immediately knew something was wrong.

As Dr. Chambers reported, the mother told her that her son had a habit of adding things that bothered him at the end of a conversation.  Also, a young person leaving "clues" that would provoke a discussion about sexual issues is a warning sign of possible sexual abuse.

When the mother later went to the bedroom to check on her son, she asked him some questions but did not press the issue.  However, her worst fears were confirmed when she heard her son in the shower a little while later. 

The next morning, she heard the shower running and realized her son was showering yet again.  At that point, she called Dr. Chambers to inform her of the situation, stating "I'm calling you so you can tell me I'm crazy."

A prosecutor who desired to succeed on an indecent assault charge would have made sure the jury heard this information, particularly the dramatic way in which Victim 6 told his mother about the shower and that he then took one shower after arriving home with Sandusky and another the next morning.  But those stories weren't ever heard by the jury.

This fact of multiple showers was clearly written down in Schultz's note and it can be derived from combining the police report information with the information in Dr. Chambers report.   There is no doubt it happened.

From the July 29, 2013 preliminary hearing testimony of Kimberly Belcher, we know that the prosecutors possessed Schultz's file notes well in advance of the Sandusky trial.  They knew that the notes contained critical information that signs of child sexual abuse were present that could have resulted in another conviction.  However it appears that they made the choice not to go "balls to the wall" to seek full justice for the victim because revealing all the facts would have exposed DPW's failures in 1998. 

More Missing Witnesses for Victim 6

Dr. Alycia Chambers
The prosecutors not only didn't present Dr. Chambers as a witness at the trial, but didn't even bother to identify her as a potential witness during jury selection.

Dr. Chambers had correctly identified Sandusky's "grooming" activities toward Victim 6.  Her report provided a detailed discussion of typical pedophile overtures, such as making promises to him, to have him sit on his lap while they went on-line, and gradually introducing him to touching.   The description of her interview with the boy was equally damning, particularly her description of him being physically anxious at the start and eager to discuss what had happened.  Chambers stated that in other sessions the boy would wander around to room looking for things to play with, but in this case he was "wide-eyed" and sat right down to begin the session.  

Dr. Chambers reported that Victim 6 was visibly anxious and conflicted, repeating:

"I don't think he meant anything by it" and "he's married, so I don't think he meant anything." 

Victim 6 told Dr. Chambers he was uncomfortable and didn't ever want to go through that situation again.  The mother told Dr. Chambers that her son was not sleeping well and was up often through the nights since the incident.

If the goal is to get convictions for all charges, why wouldn't the Commonwealth want this psychologist to testify?  Most likely because Dr. Chambers posed a great risk in revealing that her report was provided not only to the police, but to the Department of Public Welfare and to Centre County CYS (according to my October 2012 discussion with her). 

Ironically, she was listed as one of the defense's potential witnesses during jury selection.  She obviously believed Sandusky to exhibit the behaviors of a pedophile, so why would Amendola even consider her for a defense witness?

Something's not quite right here.

Lauro, Miller, and Seasock
With the prosecution only having Victim 6 and Detective Schreffler testify to the alleged crimes in that incident, it left the door wide open for Joe Amendola to call in the caseworkers who investigated the incident and concluded no abuse took place.  But Amendola never called DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, who made that decision.  According to the Patriot News, Lauro stated:

“At that time, the information that we had wasn’t sufficient enough to substantiate a case” 

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette quoted Lauro as follows:

"It didn't meet the criteria.  If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

Amendola also failed to call Centre County CYS caseworker, John Miller, who interviewed Victim 6 (and BK) and who arranged the interview by John Seasock, to testify.  Miller has been a missing person throughout the Sandusky proceedings, with no report of him testifying at the grand jury.  

Amendola also could have presented John Seasock as a defense witness because his report concluded Sandusky was not a pedophile and that he had "boundary issues."  Seasock characterized Sandusky's behavior as normal for a male football coach.  The latest information about his professional credentials reveals that he holds two masters degrees, is a PhD candidate, and is the president of Renaissance Psychology and Counseling, Incorporated.  

It is a mystery why Amendola didn't call these individuals to testify.  

In fact, he did not include Lauro and Miller as potential witnesses during jury selection, yet his list included Dr. Alycia Chambers.  That is truly inexplicable.

More Missing Witnesses for Victim 1

Mike Gillum
Mike Gillum
According to his own book, Silent No More, Aaron Fisher was not a strong witness at the grand jury and read from a prepared script for his last grand jury appearance in April 2011.  Fisher also needed considerable moral support from Mike Gillum in order to testify.  So, it was highly unusual that the prosecutors did not present Gillum - who obtained the disclosures from Fisher - as a witness.  In fact, witness Jessica Dershem never mentioned Gillum as one of the people who assisted Aaron on the day he complained to CYS.

Dershem could not have forgotten about Gillum. He was the next person after her to talk with Fisher, and according to the book, came down to her office to retrieve Aaron.

The bottom line here is that Gillum was an outspoken critic of the footdragging over charging Sandusky and there was no way the Commonwealth wanted the psychologist to express his frustrations with the police, OAG, and Governor Tom Corbett at a highly publicized trial.

Gerald Rosamilia
The Director of Clinton County CYS, Rosamilia, testified at the grand jury and his testimony would have been valuable in establishing that Sandusky had issues with getting too close to children at The Second Mile. According to press reports, when Rosamilia called TSM to inform them that Clinton County CYS was severing its ties with the charity, he was told by Katherine Genovese that they had to sometimes tell Jerry "to back off" some kids.  

If the prosecutors are trying to establish that Sandusky was molesting boys at TSM, this would have been a valuable point of reference.  However, it would have also implied that TSM had received complaints about Sandusky and that their solution was to have him "back off" (and move onto the next kid).

Karen Probst and Steve Turchetta
The school officials at CMHS actually could have been used as witnesses for the defense.  As USAToday reported in October 2013, Probst allegedly called Clinton County CYS in advance of Fisher and Daniels' arrival in an attempt to discourage them from taking the report seriously.  However, as Daniels reported at the outset, Probst had attempted to discourage her from reporting Sandusky because of all the "good" that Jerry did for the community.  Probst did not make it onto Amendola's list of potential witnesses.

Ironically, Steven Turchetta was on the prosecutions list of potential witnesses.  Turchetta testified at the grand jury that he had noticed Sandusky get "clingy" when boys broke off their relationship with him and that Sandusky got into shouting matches with boys.  Turchetta also would take some of the boys out of class so that they could meet with Jerry and said that he refereed some of the shouting matches.  Yet, Turchetta never reported Sandusky's unusual behavior.  

One would think that this would be an area worth probing by the defense.  As we would later watch on ABC, Turchetta refused to be interviewed about his actions in the Fisher case.  

That none of the CMHS officials made it into the courtroom (except wrestling coach Joe Miller) supports the theory that the Commonwealth was protecting all the institutional failures in putting a stop to Sandusky -- with the notable exception of Penn State.

The Victim 8 incident
The most notable missing witness in the Victim 8 incident is janitor Jay Witherite.  According to prosecutor McGettigan, Jay Witherite and Ronald "Buck" Petrosky were both to be presented as witnesses to confirm the hearsay of the eye-witness janitor, James Calhoun.   With no explanation given, Witherite never testified at the trial.

However, Witherite was not the only missing witness, aside from Calhoun, in this case.  

Ronald "Buck" Petrosky
According to the grand jury presentment, Calhoun told the story of what he witnessed to several people on the janitorial staff that night.  Petrosky testified to the grand jury (page 22) that all the employees working that night were relatively new employees, except for Witherite.  Petrosky himself had only been in the job as a Maintenance Worker Utility since July 25, 2000,  having transferred from Student Services to the Office of Physical Plant.  Petrosky also said that Calhoun's fellow employees feared the elderly janitor might suffer a heart attack.  And because they feared for their jobs, that they had Calhoun, who was allegedly there as a temporary employee, report what he saw to Jay Witherite.

It is notable that Louis Freeh mentioned that Witherite met with the staff to discuss the incident, but Freeh did not interview anyone except the "witnesses in Gerald. A. Sandusky's (Sandusky) trial" (Freeh Report, page 65).

So where are all these other janitors who could have served as hearsay witnesses?  Why didn't the prosecution bring in the whole gang to verify the hearsay of Calhoun?  Why did it not call Witherite?

And why haven't any of these nameless individuals come forward to confirm this incident took place in November 2000?

The answer to all the questions is the same.  This incident didn't happen.

The Victim 2 Situation
The most unusual thing about the Sandusky trial was the apparent agreement between prosecutors and the defense attorneys that Victim 2 would remain "unknown." 

According to the Commonwealth, they contacted a person who they believed was Victim 2 in September 2011, however, his version of events in the 2002 (sic) shower incident were not consistent with Mike McQueary's.  Also, according to Tom Farrell, the attorney for Gary Schultz, this individual was interviewed four times and gave inconsistent versions of events four times.  With the exception of Farrell citing an inconsistent diagram of the Lasch locker room, little detail about the level of inconsistencies in this individual's testimony has not been disclosed.

The Victim 2 who won a settlement from Penn State for his abuse gave an interview to a former FBI investigator in November 2011 that conflicted with the account of Mike McQueary.  One of the more significant pieces of information to come out of the interview was that the individual heard a locker slam while he was showering with Sandusky but had no recollection of seeing McQueary (contradicting McQueary's testimony).  The locker slam information was not on the public record until one month later, when McQueary testified to it at the December 2011 preliminary hearing.  This testimony would be quite valuable if the defense would have chosen to present this individual as Victim 2.

However, where this apparently went off the rails is when the legal team of Ross Feller Casey got involved when the alleged Victim 2 sought the representation of Andrew Shubin in an unrelated legal matter.  Shubin apparently directed Victim 2 to Ross Feller Casey, and, at some point, he changed his story from not being abused to being abused.  His legal team would release voice mail messages  from Sandusky in September 2011.  The contents of the voice mails were non-specific, but were painted as Sandusky exerting pressure on the alleged victim.  

Later, defense counselor Joe Amendola stated it was a mistake not to present this individual to rebut McQueary's version of events.

Dr. Jack Raykovitz
Amendola, however, could have called at least two other individuals to rebut McQueary's testimony at the trial -- Dr. Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim. 

According to the grand jury presentment, Dr. Raykovitz testified that he was informed by PSU's Tim Curley that nothing happened in the shower that night.  Raykovitz also stated in numerous press reports that he had never gotten a complaint about Sandusky and that he was unaware of any abuse taking place within TSM programs.  

Bruce Heim
The Patriot News interviewed Bruce Heim for a five-part series they ran in August 2012.  In Part 3 of the series, Heim was quoted:

"For five years, I worked out at the football facility, several times a week, and saw Jerry showering with children.  I said I don't think it's relevant.  It happens every day at the YMCA.  I remember the conversation specifically because it seemed like a nonstarter because of what Penn State said went on."

Heim advised Raykovitz not to inform the TSM Board.  

Again, why wouldn't Amendola put these two men, who knew and associated with Sandusky at TSM for over two decades, on the stand as defense witnesses?  Amendola listed Dr. Raykovitz as a potential witness, but did not include Heim or any of the other key members of TSM's Board on his list.  

The only TSM official who testified at the trial was VP for Development, Henry Lesch, who attempted to show that McQueary had participated in TSM golf tournaments after the incident (his testimony was inconclusive).

It is truly remarkable - and highly unusual - that Amendola did not present a single character witness from TSM to testify on Sandusky's behalf.   Again, these were people who worked with Jerry for over two decades and not one was presented to testify.  

It is also highly suspicious that - according to press reports of the ongoing Sandusky investigation - TSM and its programs were never the investigation's target.  That is amazing, if it is true, considering all the victims were plucked from the charity.  

From the Friday, November 11, 2011 article:
Kelly will only say that the investigation is ongoing.  However, Gov. Tom Corbett — who as attorney general began the Sandusky investigation — said Thursday night that the new attorney general will look into what The Second Mile knew.

Apparently, Governor Corbett (on November 10, 2011) assumed that the GOP would retain control of the OAG and whoever worked there would carry out his wishes.

Things didn't work out that way.

New AG Kathleen Kane has agreed to let the Feds handle the TSM investigation and, for the good of Pennsylvanians, they will hopefully blow the lid off the "Keystone Cover-Up."


  1. The picture you paint here not only indicates chicanery on the part of the OAG, but also gross negligence by Sandusky's defense team. JS was denied his 5th and 14th Amendment rights. So why is there no appeal to a Federal Court? Is Amendola in bed with the cops?

    Bruce Heim is interesting. I think that he was in the golf foursome with Captain McCombie, JS, and V2 that was mentioned in Captain McCombie's essay while running for BOT. Interesting that those 4 were playing golf together in summer 2011!

    I also do not think that the dialog between Curley and Raycovitz was too cordial. It might have gone like this: Curley "A graduate assistant observed JS showering with a boy late at night in the Lasch Building and it disturbed him. It also disturbs us, as we feel it is inappropriate behavior. We think that you should take some action, and by the way, keep your kids off of our campus" Raykovitz: "If you are implying that JS may be a pedophile, I think that you are crazy".

    You are correct that the 1998 incident should probably have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor lewd act with a child. It was, after all, the only act that JS admitted to with two cops listening in. Gricar would have to prove sexual intent, which he might have had trouble doing, and at the risk of trashing the $3 megabucks that JS was bringing into Centre County each year. It would also look very bad for DWP, who investigated the Sanduskys rigorously for adopting children and placing foster children. A black eye for the case workers, too.

  2. Gregory,
    Good points.

    As I said, Amendola didn't play his best game. I think he may have gotten a little squeeze locally.

    Yes, Bruce was in the golfing foursome.

    I think Curley and Schultz were expecting blow back from TSM, that's why they had DPW as the third option. If TSM wasn't going to stop Jerry from showering with kids, DPW would have done it (maybe...LOL).

    Actually, a minimum of two kids and nine counts if they wanted to press it. I'll write about this case later, because, quite frankly, Sandusky's true behavior in that case is missed by most people. It was not a one and done shower incident. Agree 100% that the fix was in when they brought in Lauro to work the case.

  3. This is Duke Lacrosse on steroids. And people were getting disbarred by this time. What gives here?

  4. Ray - I think you are correct that the missing witnesses would have been potentially damaging to CYS, DPW and Second Mile assuming the defense asked the right questions. Hopefully, these missing witnesses will be testifying at the upcoming trials.

    The prosecution may have seen other risks with some of these witnesses that may have hurt the Curley/Schultz case.

    Didn't the mother of victim 6 help identify other victims? If the mother believed the authorities made a mistake in 1998 and Sandusky was a molester, why didn't she warn all those other kid's mothers, or Penn State or Second Mile?

    Why didn't Dr. Chambers followup with the DA, police, CYS and DPW if she and her colleagues believed Sandusky was a molester?

    Did they ever interview any of James Calhoun's family or friends to see if any of them were told? If the victim 8 story is made up then Calhoun was defamed because he looks worse than anyone for not calling the police.

    1. Tim,
      I am pretty sure AG Kane's investigator is talking with those involved in the 1998 fiasco.

      The mother identified two (7, BK) aside from her son (6), and her daughter identified one (5). Those four probably helped ID 3 and 4 from the photo. 7 named all the victims in the photo when he testified (except perhaps #5).

      I can't answer why she wouldn't have warned other kids parents, except to speculate that the authorities cleared Jerry and she didn't want to slander him. She also may not have known the mothers. You'd have to talk to her about that.

      Chambers, yes, that's someone who SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE.

      Calhoun's daughter Trudy was on the witness list. He had two sons, neither of whom were on the list. I agree that this would be a negative on their father, but that's why a person with dementia is the perfect witness. If he didn't tell them what he saw in 2000 (highly doubtful) then they can't be held responsible. All the other janitors obviously kept it a secret!!!!

  5. I hope that Moulton will do a better job about 1998 than Corbett, Kelly and Freeh.

    I don't see how the mother could have been accused of slandering Sandusky if she reported the truth to other parents or Second Mile. Sandusky would have had to have been self-destructive to sue her for slander and drag it all out in the spotlight.

    I agree Chambers should have done a lot more but maybe the mother asked her to let it be.

    If Chambers had testified maybe victim 6's psychological status would have become an issue. He was being treated by Chambers prior to the Sandusky bear hug. What were his preexisting conditions and did they factor in somehow with his credibility?

  6. Lawyers often seem to miss the targets that seem so obvious to laymen who look at the whole picture instead of focusing on the minutiae of "the law" vs the exposure of The TRUTH.

    Time and again seeing the transcripts of hearings and trial it was so easy to say "ASK THE QUESTION". It was like watching Dustin Hoffman in SLEEPERS shuffling through a legal pad. Mike McQueary had so many discrepancies in his various testimonies I was astounded when Amendola failed to focus on his contradictions OR to show a blow up of the shower room interior and request a blow by blow of positions.

    Not that I have much problem with the outcome of the proceedings - I was hopeful that Amedola could at least have demonstrated the absurdity of making this entire situation about PSU. Only Vic 2 the McQueary "victim" who likely was not a victim and the very questionable demented janitor victim really made this about PSU and Paterno. but discrediting that testimony would surely have been the proper defense for Sandusky while going a long long way to expose the absurdity of the Fact FreeH Fiction and the insistence that somehow Joe and PSU were at fault.

    There must have been a ton of $$$ and power focused on making this about PSU instead of The 2nd Mile, DPW and CYS. The world by in large is somehow certain that all of this was a cover up by PSU when it was actually a cover up by the Republican power structure in PA and the monied elite that funded or profited from The 2nd Mile. The missing witnesses and failure to ask the questions or expose McQueary are clearly a part of that. .

  7. Ray:
    Did we ever find out what happened to the missing pages of the ‘leaked’ 1998 reports? There were 2 pages missing within the police report and Seasock’s evaluation ended in mid-sentence. I ask because the date you reference for the mother telling Sandusky not to attend any of the boy’s ball games would fall within the missing pages.

    What I found interesting is that Chambers’ report contained only 19 lines about her conversation with the boy, the rest was information provided by the mother; Seasock had over a page of detail about his discussion with the boy. Given what’s available, the decision not to prosecute was based on what the boy told them at the time, which differed significantly from his testimony. He told all three that nothing sexual happened and was even able to describe sexual abuse to Seasock by using the terms good touch, bad touch (but he forgot that by the time the trial came). He told the police and Seasock that Sandusky asked him if he wanted to shower and he said yes because he did feel sweaty (he didn’t say he coaxed him). His mother was the one who told Chambers about “all the guys do it.”

    His mother also reported to Chambers that the boy said something like “We took a shower, in case you’re wondering why my hair is wet.” Yet, she reported to the police (the same day) that SHE noticed his hair was wet and asked HIM why it was wet. If his mother was telling two different versions at the time, he probably doesn’t know which one to use.

    What became of the conversation where Sandusky said to her, “I wish I were dead”? Did that ever pan out? I see a verbatim conversation between Sandusky and the mother in the police report, but it doesn’t come close to the “dead” comment. I also can’t find anything in the 1998 reports that mentions Sandusky lathering the boy up (mother said in one of Ganim’s reports - “Jerry Sandusky admitted to me that he lathered up my son..”?)

    You say this boy never disclosed the events of the evening, but he did….back in 1998 when it was fresh in his mind. It’s printed in black and white in three reports, but I don’t see a link here to Seasock’s report. After reading all three reports, it’s clear that the boy knew the meaning of sexual abuse and was certain that he was not sexually abused by Sandusky. Personally, I would believe a child, any day of the week, before I would believe an adult when it comes to this. Unfortunately, we are dealing with adults now, not children.

    The mother allowed her 11 year old child to continue having a relationship with Sandusky until he was 18; after that, he did it willingly up until the Summer of 2011. Ask any mother, “If you suspected that someone sexually abused your 11 year old, would you allow your child to continue seeing that person if they wanted?” I guarantee, the answer will be “NO” 100% of the time.

    You are willing to believe that all of these people, in all of these different agencies conspired; yet, you never touch on, or consider, what is the most obvious when you look at everything. When someone says things that are consistently fabricated, or are proven to be flat out lies, one should pause and take a closer look at that person. The truth isn’t hard to remember. Let's not forget his ZERO comment in his testimony.

    On another note, I believe your victim 9’s birth year and age may have been incorrectly reported in the transcripts. I believe it is 1992. If you go to the public unified judicial system website, you will see that there is a young man with the same exact (not common) First, Middle, & Last Name, in the same county, with the SAME birthday….only his birth year is 1992. That would make him a year older….would that even surprise anyone at this point?

  8. Thanks for your comments.

    The Chambers reports says: "He was visibly anxious repeating, "I don't think he meant anything by it," after repeating what he had reported to his mother.

    In other words, he repeated the story the mother told Dr. Chambers.

    What was "it?" As in, "I don't think he meant anything by it?"

    Why did he take a shower within two hours of showering with Sandusky?

    What happened after he said things went "black" after Sandusky lifted him up in the shower?

    The fact of the matter is that the boy did not disclose everything that happened to him because he was concerned about getting Jerry in trouble. That is evident from his comments. Also, Det. Schreffler believed the boy to be withholding information.

    The police report was 95 pages long -- we saw a dozen pages. We only saw excerpts of Seasock's and Chambers' reports. It would be great to see the rest,but what is available in those reports is a case of child sexual abuse.

    But don't take my word for it. Take the word of Jerry Lauro.

    Lauro said if he had read Chambers report, he would have DEFINITELY indicated abuse.

  9. HMCIV,
    I'll add a few things to answer your questions.
    1. The conversation "I wish I were dead" was in the missing pages, but quoted in the Freeh Report, as was the mother's wish for Sandusky not to attend baseball games.

    2. Schreffler's police report is his summary of what was said and not entirely accurate. I spoke with Dr. Chambers who told me the mother told her that the boys hair was dry and he brought up the point it was wet. Again, his way of indicating something was wrong.

    3. At the trial, Victim 6 never disclosed anything more than he did in 1998. He didn't say there was a "bad touch" involved (as I think you were implying).

    4. "Zero" is his answer in response to Amendola's question if he was testifying for money. Seriously, if Victim 6 was doing this for money, don't you think he'd have embellished his story to get more money??

    5. Read my next article about the mother's conditions for her son's contact with Sandusky.

    6. His failure to disclose abuse is very typical for a pre-teen/teenage boy. You should read Ken Lanning's Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis p. 160-166. That will explain what is going on with Victim 6 and other victims.

    Good catch on the date. Those dockets are rather recent.

    Take care,

  10. Thanks for allowing me to chime in. I commend all of you for your work. I also seek the truth.

    “It” was the bear hug. Schultz’s written notes say another shower that night. According to Freeh & Chambers, he took 1 the next morning. Shultz’s note was based on 5th person info (mother, Chambers, Schreffler, Harmon, Schultz). Likely his notes are wrong & 1st person reports are correct.

    In 98, there was no “black” part. JS asked V6 if he wanted to shower; he said yes because he was sweaty. JS turned showers on when they entered the locker room. Undressed in separate areas. JS entered shower 1st. V6 entered & went to another shower. V6 was nervous (uncomfortable, felt weird) - he never showered with an adult. JS told V6 to use shower that was warm (beside him). When V6 finished washing HIMSELF, JS bear-hugged him (squeezing guts), they laughed; JS lifted V6 to get the soap out of his hair – again, funny to V6. Shower lasted about 5 minutes. JS turned off showers, they went to separate areas to dress. After dressed, left locker room, got in JS’s car, & JS took V6 home. If JS had picked shower farther away, would it be for a better view of child?

    More from V6 in 98: Many people asked if JS touched him. He said nothing like this occurred. At no time did he feel something sexual was going to happen. When asked again if he felt he experienced sexual abuse, he said no. When describing sexual abuse, he explained appropriate definition as good touch, bad touch, or when another person touches a child on their penis.

    Seasock interviewed “cold”, but accessed prior interviews with police & CYS after his interview/before his report. V6 gave “explicitly consistent” interviews to police, CYS, & Seasock – only slight differences. Through previous interviews, it was apparent another coach was present in locker room/shower. (Chambers report says otherwise.)

    Chambers – V6 “appeared worried & eager to pick up on a PREVIOUS discussion we had”. Police interviewed V6 that day. It’s logical he was anxious.

    Freeh referenced leaked pgs & 3-4 add’l pgs that weren’t leaked. What’s in the 2 pgs (“I wish I were dead”) that made them “un-leakworthy”? The pgs were chosen. IMO, the rest of the report confirms no abuse occurred - via transcribed, recorded interviews with V6 and BK. Again, confirmed by mother’s actions. Trust me, there are no “conditions” a mother would agree to if she truly thought something inappropriate occurred with her child. Not 1.

    I have more faith in reports from 98 than what people say (or don’t say) 12 yrs later. Everyone will NOW say they knew or suspected - that’s what people do. Details were cherry picked by the media for reporting. Very few have read more to see logic. I don’t need to explain MM to you.

    Janitors didn’t report - it was JS, they were afraid for their jobs. Janitor that witnessed the act: fought in war, saw people blown apart; was done working within 1 month; now has dementia; and, didn’t know WHO Sandusky was until afterwards. Tell me again why HE didn’t intervene and why HE was concerned for his job?

    I’ve read lots on sexual abuse of children, repressed memories / false repressed memories. I suggest you look at the 80’s cases - specifically, actions/tactics of investigators & media, & book “Michelle Remembers”. The JS case is textbook 80’s hysteria child abuse cases, except we have: adult victims, PSP lying under oath (questioning ADULTS as if they were CHILDREN), many attorneys, and LOTS of money. Logic, consistency, credibility & facts are lacking. If it turns out as I think, people will say “I suspected (__) were lying…..”

    Questions: Who owns the # that received “leaked” police rpt on 3/23/12 at 23:01(425-722-1170)? V9: Surly AG verified DOB’s. Purpose of V9 giving false age/DOB under oath? Can S Ganim be stripped of her award, as JP was stripped of his wins?

    Keep up the excellent work!

    1. HMCIV,
      A family member verified it was TWO showers.

      We have not seen the full transcripts of V6's interview, so we don't know the full extent of what he said to police or what BK said to police.

      Seasock's conversation with Schreffler is instructive. He had no idea about anything and was wrong.

      I'm not a fan of repressed memory therapy and Victim 6 hasn't changed his story from the original version so far as I can tell.

      The janitor incident is a hoax. We can agree on that.

      Good catch on V9's DOB. Unless the courts made a mistake, something is fishy there.

      Ganim? One of these days I'll do an expose.

      Thanks for your questions and your digging around.


    2. HMCIV,
      I forgot to add if you read the police report, it says the mother noticed the boy's hair was wet when she went to his bedroom. Chambers told me the mother told her his hair was DRY when he arrived home. Thus, if his hair was wet at bed time, that means he showered a second time just after arriving home.