Analysis: Evidence Rules Out PSU Cover-Up in 2001

Police and OAG investigators interviewed 67 former and/or current Centre County CYS employees -- but none were presented as grand jury witnesses regarding the 2001 case.  That is one of many pieces of evidence that demonstrate the weakness of the Commonwealth's case.  

By

Ray Blehar

The existing media scenario and the view of law enforcement is one and the same -- PSU officials conspired to cover-up Sandusky's crimes to protect the school's and the football program's reputation.   

The evidence, however, tells a very different story.  

When the evidence for and against a cover-up is weighed, the evidence stacks up heavily against the existing/accepted scenario.

Evidence For 
1. Mike McQueary testified that he conveyed to PSU officials "that it was a in a very bad sexual act, a molestation act with a minor"
2. Under the 2007 law,  Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were required to report the incident to the authorities because they were "school employees."
3.  No records exist to verify that Penn State made a report of the incident in 2001.
4.  An unauthenticated email covering the period on February 25-27, 2001, suggests (but not conclusively) that a report was not made to child welfare authorities in 2001.
5.  Former University Park police chief Tom Harmon was the only witness (with first hand knowledge) to testify that no report was made to the police about the 2001 incident.

Evidence Against
McQueary's Report
1.  McQueary testified that he did not use any explicitly sexual language with any of the PSU officials and, in fact, said he could not remember the exact words he used.  McQueary testified that the men "definitely received from me that it was sexual." (July 29, 2013 hearing, page 29)
2.  There are not corroborating witnesses for McQueary's statements to Curley and Schultz.
3.  Other individuals who McQueary informed about the incident on February 9th, 2001 did not advise him to make a report to the police and/or child welfare.  Those individuals also did not make a report.

The Law
4. Under the child abuse reporting statute in 2001, no Penn State officials were among the enumerated individuals who were mandated to report child abuse.  
5. The statute's definition of a student (under section 6303) was  "[a]n individual enrolled in a public or private school, intermediate unit or area vocational-technical school who is under 18 years of age." The statute did not apply to colleges and universities in 2001.

Child Abuse Reports/Records
6. Under Pennsylvania law, there is no requirement for reporters of child abuse to maintain a record of the report.  
7. In 2001, local child welfare authorities were not required to report General Protective Services complaints to the State-wide database.  Note: Required to be included as of July 1, 2014.
8. Under the Public Welfare Code provision for General Protective Services, local child welfare authorities have the discretion to prioritize and investigate complaints based on a risk assessment of the alleged abuse report.   
9.  Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) assisted in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky and was aware the investigation did not result in an abuse finding.  
10.  Records of investigations of unfounded complaints are expunged upon notification by ChildLine.

History of Penn State's Reports of Sandusky's Behavior

11.  PSU cooperated fully with a 1998 investigation of then active assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky.

12.  In 2001, PSU Athletic Director Timothy Curley reported (then-retired) Sandusky's shower incident outside of the University his employer, The Second Mile.
13. There is no evidence that PSU officials were aware of any inappropriate conduct by Sandusky with children after February 9, 2001.  
14.  PSU officials openly communicated about the 1998 and 2001 incidents over email and courtesy copied support staff on some of the communications.
15.  PSU Senior Vice-President of Business and Finance, Gary Schultz, reported his knowledge of the 2001 incident to the University's legal counsel, Wendell Courtney.
16.  According to the grand jury presentment and other court proceedings, Schultz recalled that a report of the 2001 incident was made to local child welfare authorities (i.e., CC CYS).
17.  According to an email (page 84 of Freeh Report) from Wendell Courtney, he recalled that in 2001 "someone...contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation."

Lack of Corroborating Witnesses/Witness Credibility
18.  According to the Moulton Report (page 156), the Director of CC CYS testified at the Sandusky grand jury on March 10, 2011, however her testimony did not address the 2001 incident.
19.  According to the Moulton Report's timeline (pages 142 to 166) none of the 66 former and/or current employees of CC CYS interviewed by the police and/or general investigators  were presented as grand jury witnesses about the 2001 incident. 
20.  Prosecution witness, former University Park police chief Tom Harmon testified that he purposely mislabeled the 1998 police report of the Sandusky investigation so that the press would not be able to discover it in the police logs.
21. The University Park police under Harmon's direction had no qualms about arresting football players and properly reporting the arrests as such in the police logs.
22. Harmon was formerly a neighbor of Sandusky's and attended the same church.
23. Harmon was a mandated reporter of child abuse in 2001 and he could have been charged with failure to report child abuse if he admitted knowledge of the 2001 incident.
24. On the Monday after the incident, Harmon emailed Schultz to confirm that a report of the 1998 incident existed in the imaged archives.  Harmon testified that Schultz didn't ask him about the file nor did he recall giving the file to Schultz.


The numbers don't lie.  

Conclusion

Based on the evidence on the public record to date, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Commonwealth to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for its allegation of a failure to report and a cover-up by PSU officials.

There is reasonable doubt at every turn (without introducing more doubt based on the actions an inactions of The Second Mile).

Note: This is a companion post, titled "What Are They Hiding?"  that will examine the possible reasons why Commonwealth officials and the Board of Trustees pinned the blame on PSU officials for enabling Sandusky's crimes.