Media: Poor fact checking enabled false narrative to prevail

 There are a number of different statements about the Sandusky case that the media reported as facts, then were refuted.  Other statements accepted by the media fall apart under scrutiny.

By

Ray Blehar

As I pointed out in Saturday’s blog, the reports stating that an anonymous e-mail or message board tip led investigators to McQueary has never been verified.   If the prosecution received this tip, they were obligated to produce it in response to the discovery request from the attorneys of Curley and Schultz.  To date this information has not been produced, yet no one in the media has questioned the story.

Based on the evidence (or lack thereof), that anonymous tip has about as much validity as the text message Vicky Triponey alleged that Joe Paterno sent to the team in 2007. 

In other words -- none.

The anonymous e-mail tip is not the only “urban legend” in this case.  In fact, there are quite a few.  Some have already been dismissed as false by knowledgeable people, but others have escaped scrutiny -- until now.

Refuted “Findings of Fact” from the Grand Jury Presentment

 

The most explosive, inflammatory charge in the case – that McQueary witnessed “a ten year old boy being subject to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky” was refuted within one month of its publication.  At the December 16, 2011 preliminary perjury hearing, McQueary stated he could not see insertion nor used the term anal intercourse or rape to describe the act.  While knowledgeable people know a rape didn't occur in 2001, there are a number of ignoramuses in the media - Christine Brennan comes to mind - who insist that multiple rapes occurred at PSU.

The “urban legend” that Central Mountain High School officials acted promptly was refuted within weeks of the grand jury presentment when the Huffington Post ran the story of school officials telling Dawn Daniels to “go home and think it over.”   ABC's Chris Cuomo, of 20/20 fame, dispelled this "fact" when he ran the story on Aaron Fisher last fall.

Also, the grand jury account of the 1998 investigation placed all of the responsibility for the investigation on the University Park Police and the failure to press charges on then District Attorney Ray Gricar, made no mention of CYS’s role in the investigation and barely mentioned DPW at all.  It took nearly six months for the facts about the child protection agencies and Dr. Chambers to make it into the press – and this came about when defense attorney, Joe Amendola made a request for the psychology reports as part of the court proceedings. The press boiled down the DPW and CYS screw up as a case of a "lost pscyhology report."

Other “Facts” Unsupported By Evidence

 

1.        The 1998 investigation was transferred from CYS to DPW due to a conflict of interest between CYS and The Second Mile (TSM).  TSM provided foster care and foster placement services in conjunction with CYS. 

·         Based on TSM’s 1998 IRS 990, a total of $32,319 was spent on the foster care program.   The 1998 Annual Report included as section titled “Foster Family Support” which stated, “Twenty four Foster Family activities were provided to 1,316 foster family participants throughout the state.”  The foster care activities consisted of trips to local amusement parks, recreational venues, and restaurants as rewards for program participation.  TSM's foster care program did not involve any training for foster parents or any assistance with the placement of children.

·         According to the 1998 police report, once alerted to Sandusky investigation by police on May 4, 1998, CYS sent caseworker John Miller to the University Park Police station to meet with Schreffler.  Miller informed Schreffler he would check with CYS officials and get back with him about the investigation.  Later that day, Miller called Schreffler back and informed him that he would be assigned to the case.  If CYS had a conflict-of-interest with TSM regarding foster care, it stands to reason they would have informed Miller of this fact immediately. 

·         CYS Director, Carol Smith stated in a Pittsburgh Post Gazette interview that Centre  County CYS had minimal dealings with the The Second Mile. 

·         The law (055 Pa. § 3490.81) in this case states that DPW should have been called in from the beginning due  to Sandusky’s status as an agent of the county due to his work with The Second Mile. 

Conclusion:  CYS conflict with TSM because of foster care services is not supported by the evidence.   It is more likely DPW was called in because the law required it.

2.       Jerry Lauro was brought in to investigate because of Sandusky’s high profile status.

·         There is nothing in the Protective Service statutes regarding investigations of high profile child abuse cases.

·         General internet searches come up empty when attempting to find high profile child abuse cases in Pennsylvania that were investigated by Jerry Lauro. 

·         Specific searches on DPW’s website regarding high profile child abuse cases returned no results.

·         The law (055 Pa. § 3490.81) in this case supports the case that Lauro was brought in based on the fact that Sandusky was an "agent" of the county.

·         Chambers’ oral report to ChildLine on or about May 7^th would not have been a factor in Lauro’s assignment

Conclusion:  Jerry Lauro’s assignment because of Sandusky’s high profile is not supported by the evidence.  It is more likely DPW was called in because the law required it.

Note:  The PA OAG made no reference to the Protective Service law because it would have damaged their case vs. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz and also highlighted deficiencies in the CYS response to 1998 investigation.

3.        Mike McQueary only spoke with his father, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz about the 2001 incident.

·         The press has fallen into line in reporting that McQueary told the aforementioned individuals about the incident he witnessed on February 9, 2001.  However, the press has been less than curious in seeking out other individuals that McQueary admitted to telling.

·         At trial, McQueary admitted to telling his entire family about the incident (over time) and that he believed he told his girlfriend at the time. 

·         McQueary stated at trial that the incident was nothing he told the guys in the locker room about, yet on page 88 of the Freeh Report, a footnote that states that McQueary told an equipment manager about the incident.  It is likely that the equipment manager was either Brad “Spider” Caldwell or Kirk Diehl, considering both have been on the football staff prior to 2001.

·         If McQueary told an equipment manager, it’s also likely that he told others on the football staff.  While the SIC interviewed current staff members, it is unclear whether or not they interviewed coaches who left the staff – Kenny Jackson and Kenny Carter immediately come to mind as possibilities, considering they were both Wide Receiver coaches before McQueary.

·         Finally, there are the people on the message board or in the chat room that McQueary allegedly told, yet not one of these people have come forward.  It must have been a lonely night in the chat room for Mike.  Or maybe no one read his message board post (except Sara Ganim).

Conclusion:  McQueary told more people about 2001 than the press (or the AG) have reported.  And if McQueary holds to form, every witness will have been told something different.

4.        Gary Schultz kept a“secret file” on Sandusky that he hid from investigators.

 

·         Media reports  on or about June 12, 2012, stated that the Freeh investigators uncovered a file kept by Schultz containing e-mails and notes about Sandusky.

·         Court filings by Gary Schultz state that Schultz informed then PSU General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, about the existence of the files on 5 January 2011 (prior to his grand jury appearance).

·         Schultz was retired from Penn State when Grand Jury Subpoena 1179 was issued in December 2010.  There has been no credible evidence presented that Schultz was ever informed of the subpoena’s requirements after being re-employed by Penn State in early 2011.  Schultz had re-retired from PSU when another subpoena for similar information was served on  February 2, 2012.

·         At the July 12, 2012 press conference, Freeh stated his investigators uncovered the file in March 2012.  The PA OAG stated that the files were turned over to them by April of 2012 after an eighteen month delay. 

·         Former President Spanier also stated that Counsel Baldwin never informed him about any subpoenas while he was President and she was serving as General Counsel. 

 

Conclusion:  The allegation that Schultz had withheld the files from investigators is not supported by credible evidence.

Bottom Line:  The person who was keeping the existence of the files “a secret” from the Attorney General appeared to be Cynthia Baldwin, not Gary Schultz.   Baldwin's “secret” is more commonly known as obstruction of justice. 

And if she informed other PSU officials (e.g., Erickson, Frazier,etc.) about the file before it was "found" by Freeh and turned over to the AG, then we have something a bit more problematic for Penn State.

Where are they now? Jerry Lauro, DPW Investigator

One of the individuals who definitely "should have done more" about Jerry Sandusky was Jerry Lauro, the DPW investigator who determined there wasn't enough evidence to "indicate" a finding of abuse.  Where is he now and what is he doing?

By
Ray Blehar

At the outset of the Sandusky Scandal, the public's attention was diverted away from the role of Pennsylvania's child protective services in letting Sandusky roam free for 14 years.  The Department of Public Welfare (DPW) employee at the center of the storm was Jerry Lauro, a Special Program Representative who took the lead on the 1998 investigation.  

Local legend has it that Lauro was brought in because of a conflict of interest between Second Mile and Centre County Children and Youth Services.  That, and that he was assigned to abuse cases involving "high profile" individuals.

After reading what follows, all the "high profile" abusers should sleep well at night.

Lauro and the 1998 Sandusky Investigation

The 1998 University Park Police Report detailed the actions taken by Lauro in the 1998 investigation.

May 5, 1998   1:55PM          J. Lauro, DPW, informed police he was assigned to case.

                                             Lauro stated Sandusky will be interviewed on 7 May.

May 7, 1998  11:00AM        Lauro met with police.        

                                             Lauro rec’d transcribed interviews of V6 & B.K.

                                             Lauro reviewed case file of J. Miller (CYS).

May 7, 1998 11:15AM         Lauro and police went to residence of Victim 6.

                                             Lauro interviewed mother of Victim 6.

                                             Lauro obtained clothing given to Victim 6 by Sandusky.

May 8, 1998 11:55AM        Lauro informed police that DPW was going forward with evaluation 
                                            of V6 (over objections of police and ADA Karen Arnold)

June 1, 1998 11:00AM           Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky.  Determined no sexual

                                               assault occurred.

Based on the police report, it appears that Lauro did about as little as a caseworker investigating a child abuse case could do.  Lauro claimed he never discussed the details of the case with Detective Schreffler.  Lauro looked at the file, then talked to the mom, then arranged a sham evaluation of the child.   After that, it appears he waited around to be told to do a "pro forma" interview with Sandusky so that DPW could close the case.

Lauro's Side of the Story

In a December 2011 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, Lauro stated the incident  "didn't meet the criteria," and "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

It appears that once Lauro learned (from Sara Ganim) the psychology reports were about to become public knowledge the next day (March 23, 2012), he changed his tune and shifted the blame on the PSU police for "hiding" the reports from him.

A March 22, 2012, Patriot News article reported that “Lauro was interviewed by the state grand jury that recently brought 52 child sex abuse charges involving 10 boys against Sandusky, but he said he did not even know psychologists had evaluated the boy then 11, until a reporter who acquired the 100-page report approached Lauro and showed him the reports." 

Later in the same article, Lauro said this about the two psychology reports:  “Detective Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” and about Chambers’ report:  “The conclusions she had drawn in her report were pretty damaging,” Lauro said. “I would have made a different decision. … It’s unbelievable, and it gets my blood pressure going when I think about it.” 

The man who set up the second evaluation never knew the psychologists had interviewed the boy?  And, let's not forget that Dr. Chambers submitted her evaluation to ChildLine in early May.  So, Lauro had access to it as well.

Pulitzer Prize winner,  Sara Ganim reported it just like Lauro told her...

Was it a coincidence that Sara Ganim was interviewing Jerry Lauro about the psychology reports one day before the reports were made public?   And after the reports became public, Sara Ganim never wrote a follow-up to correct the record about what Lauro knew (or as Louis Freeh famously said "should have known").  

The public (and Louis Freeh) went on believing that Lauro never saw Chambers' report.

Lauro Didn't Know The Law Then or Now 

In a July 16, 2012 interview with the Patriot News about the 1998 investigation, Jerry Lauro stated:

"If there was a need to have a safety plan, I would have had one there. I’m really not sure if I did," Lauro said.

Lauro got it wrong on two counts:
1.   A safety plan is required every time -- in accordance with Pa. 055 § 3490.56 (b)
2.  The county agency is responsible for working with the family or, in the 1998 case, the charity to ensure a safety plan is in place.  Under the law, although DPW is running the investigation, all other activities are the responsibility of CYS.

Lauro didn't know his job or the law in 1998 and it appears he still didn't know either in 2012.

Where Is Jerry Lauro Now?

In October, 2006, Jerry retired from the state Department of Public Welfare (DPW) as an Office of Children Youth and Families Regional Supervisor. He had 31 years of service with the department.

During approximately 15 years of his tenure with The Department, Jerry conducted and/or supervised numerous allegations of child abuse. In total, Jerry worked for almost 20 total years in children and youth programs. 

Today, he trains various caseworker/supervisor and foster parent curriculum.  Here are a couple courses he will be teaching this year.

Title:

110: Module 7: The Court Process

Presenter:Jerry Lauro

Participants:Newly hired caseworkers

Date:March 28, 2013

Time:9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Location:The Pennsylvania Child Welfare Resource Center

Title:

110: Module 1: Introduction to Pennsylvania's

Child Welfare System

Presenter:Jerry Lauro

Participants:Newly hired caseworkers

Date:April 23, 2013

Time:9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Location:The Pennsylvania Child Welfare Resource Center

If I were a parent in Pennsylvania, I would not be sleeping well knowing who is training new caseworkers about protecting children.

ANALYSIS: Freeh 1998 Key Findings - No Legal or Evidentiary Basis

The 1998 Freeh Report Findings are unsupported on both legal and evidentiary grounds. This professional analysis of the facts concerning 1998 is a devastating blow to the credibility of the Freeh Report, Louis Freeh, and the PSU Board of Trustees (BOT). 

Ray Blehar has 27 years of experience as an analyst and investigator. His professional activities included serving as a member of the Board of Examiners for the U.S. Senate Productivity and Maryland Quality Awards program, where he examined the business practices of private and public sector organizations.  Those examinations covered:  the organizations' legal, ethical, and societal responsibilities; strategic management; customer relations; process management; and business performance.   He holds certifications as a Quality Improvement Associate with the American Society for Quality and a team facilitator through the Army Management Engineering College.

Why Support the 1998 Due Process Petition?

MAKE LOUIS FREEH MISERABLE NOW. 

We have had several questions asked about the 1998 Due Process Petition. Some people want to know why we are not trying to overturn ALL of the NCAA Sanctions and to attack the entire Freeh Fiction. If you are a regular reader of this website you know we think the Freeh Report is filled with far more inaccuracies than just the 1998 "key findings". 

We agree with you - ALL OF THE NCAA SANCTIONS should be rescinded and the entire FREEH FICTION should be renounced. We intend to do just that as time passes.

Here is the reasoning for going after 1998 first. 

1) 1998 is the weakest finding of several weak findings in the Freeh Fiction
2) The fallacy of the "key findings" in 1998 are the easiest to understand and accept
3) The 2001 situation will be adjudicated in the Perjury Trials in Jan. 
4) We can explain the 1998 fallacies in short simple language and we have all the facts. 
5) Contesting the 1998 Freeh Fiction is impossible for a rational person to oppose.
6) We have support for this approach from people who can make this work.    

1) The weakest link 
Attacking a document at it's weakest point is a tried and true method of casting doubt on the entire document. If Freeh was wrong in 1998 - and he is wrong - it is easier to raise doubts in the minds of those who accept Freeh as fact in the rest of the Freeh findings

2) Each of the Key Findings in 1998 are Misleading Deceptions LINK 
Just click on the link above and see the entire dissection of the 1998 key findings. 

3) The 2001 Perjury Trials 
When Tim Curley and Gary Schultz are judged 'not guilty' in the January perjury trials two things will happen. 1) They will be free to speak their minds about everything they know. and 2) MIke McQueary will have been subjected to rigorous cross-examination on his various statements about what he has had to say to his father, Dr. Dranov, Joe Paterno, former teammates, on messageboard chats, to the Grand Jury, at the Perjury Preliminary hearing, and to Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. This additional information and those not guilty verdicts will go a long way to changing the environment concerning 2001. 

4) The simplicity of the 1998 argument: 
The DPW and DA's office concluded after a lengthy inquiry that NO CRIMINAL or Sexually Inappropriate behavior occurred in the 1998 incident. This inquiry, BY LAW, is to be kept confidential. 
Freeh makes the unfounded claim that Joe Paterno and PSU administrators knew the details of the inquiry and were somehow at fault for not punishing or restricting Jerry Sandusky in 1998. 

Further

Freeh's evidence that Joe "knew and followed it closely" does not exist. The emails from Curley to Schultz do not include Joe AND even if Joe was told by Curley that a mother's complaint brought a DPW inquiry that found nothing Criminal or Sexually Inappropriate - so what? Is Joe Paterno supposed to overrule the DPW and DA's office? 

The statements in RED are very simple and easy to accept. If the child protective agencies, police and DA do a thorough inquiry and find no Criminal or Sexually inappropriate behavior by what measure is a football coach supposed to oppose that finding? 

5) Contesting 1998 is impossible to rationally oppose. 

We  need the broadest support we can obtain and it is very difficult to oppose Due Process. The idea that Joe Paterno should have stopped Sandusky in 1998 when DPW and the DA concluded his behavior was neither criminal or sexually inappropriate is absurd even if Joe knew that such an inquiry had taken place. So Freeh's argument that "Joe Knew" is a red herring because all Joe could have known is that DPW and the DA looked into a mother's complaint and found that Jerry did nothing wrong.

6) Wide spread support from people who can help. 
We have the support of FRANCO HARRIS who is lining up other players to endorse this effort. We have the assurance of Anthony Lubrano that 25 to 30,000 signatures will get his support to take this public and to the Board of Trustees.  

WE will extend our efforts to overturn all the NCAA restrictions after the Perjury Trial results in January 2013 but too many people can logically refrain from doing anything until after that happens. Too many have questions about the McQueary incident and Joe's Grand Jury testimony. 

So we are left with doing nothing or attacking the 1998 findings now to keep the fight alive and set the stage for January when we can fight the 2001 findings after having successfully shown the Board of Trustees that there are a significant number of people who want to see the 1998 thru 2000 wins restored and 15 million of the 60 million in fines rescinded NOW. All it will require is a very short review of the 1998 findings of Freeh by a credible INDEPENDENT authority with NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. This rather simple review can be as easy as having someone like Judge Lewis read the findings and the "evidence" and ruling on the validity of Freeh's absurd findings. 

THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CAN DO NOW to keep this fight alive until January. 

First Download and Print copies of the Due Process for JVP and PSU 1998 Petition
LINK DOWNLOAD AND PRINT DUE PROCESS 1998 PETITION LINK 

1) Sign the ONLINE PETITION - that's good 

2) Download an Print the Petition and gather signatures - that BETTER 

3) Print many copies & hand them out to others to get more signatures - THAT'S BEST 

OR YOU CAN DOWNLOAD AND PRINT THE PETITION RIGHT HERE
imagine what we can do if 2000 of us hand out 20 printed petitions and half of those are returned with 20 signatures each. 

Due Process Petiton Printable Version

Mother of Victim 6: “This whole thing stinks so much more than we all know.”

Press reports detailing the police investigation were largely overshadowed by the events of the trial.  While we work to build a complete timeline, what we’ve uncovered so far appears to be both a cover-up and a change of direction.

In late 2010, the police sat down with mother of Victim 6 and paged through Sandusky’s book Touched.  She readily identified other boys who had often attended football games together. The mother then said something quite astonishing:

“At one point police told me they’ve had less evidence in murder cases,” she said. “I kept being told, March, April, June, October. ... The AG kept asking for more evidence. The police told me they had enough for 400 counts, but the AG wanted only 40. This whole thing just stinks so much more than we all know.”

Around the same time that police were contacting the mother of Victim 6, they also knocked on the door of assistant coach Mike McQueary and asked him if rumors were true that he’d witnessed something in the locker room on campus.   Despite rumors of McQueary meeting with police in a parking lot to confess what he knew, the grand jury presentment states otherwise – “[t]he graduate assistant was never questioned by University Police and no other police entity conducted an investigation until he testified in Grand Jury in December 2010.”

What police determined over the next 12 months, after talking to McQueary and the mother, eventually lead to interviews of Victims 3, 4, 5, and 7 by November 2011.  Victims 9 and 10 were added based on hot-line calls.   However, court documents filed by Sandusky's attorneys make references to accusers 11 through 18. 

It is possible that Victims 11 through 17 were really Victims 2 through 9 – children who the police found based on leads from Aaron Fisher - but cases got "lost" in the OAG's office's game of "musical state troopers" early in the investigation. 

Months passed with no victims being identified, then the OAG got a lucky break when Centre County DA Stacy Parks Miller tipped them about McQueary’s chat room exploits.   The OAG finally had the case it wanted -- against Graham Spanier and Penn State. 

Prosecutors focus on a “pattern”

The police told The Patriot-News that prosecutors would not file charges that don’t fit into the pattern they’ve already established.  

Which pattern would that be?

Victim 6’s mom said her son, who was was denied justice once in 1998, was almost denied justice a second time when the AG told her they were not going to file charges for the 1998 incident. 

“The state cop fought for them,” she said. “I heard it got heated, but he stood his ground because he said my son was the cornerstone of the whole case and how they got the other football boys.”

Based on the mother’s statement, the police had established a pattern for Jerry Sandusky’s abuse before they interviewed her and her son’s abuse - a pre-pubescent boy showering with Sandusky - did not fit the pattern.

The investigation started with a report of abuse by a teenager who was abused in his early teen years and the abuse continued until he was fifteen.  If Victim 6, who was 11 years old at the time of abuse, didn’t fit the pattern, then there must have been other victims, likely in puberty or in their teens that had been abused and identified to prosecutors.  

As documented in the grand jury presentment and from the trial, Victims 1, 4, and 9 were all teenagers when the abuse occurred.  Sandusky's abuse of Victim 4, that included oral sex and attempts at anal penetration, occurred over a period of years, in which Sandusky took him on overnight stays at Toftrees prior to football games and also took him to the 1998 Outback Bowl and the 1999 Alamo Bowl.  At trial, Sandusky's letters to Victim 1 were deemed to be similar to letters that would by typical of a relationship between two teenagers.  Sandusky performed oral sex on Victim 1 many times and likewise, Victim 1 did so to Sandusky.  Victim 9 stated that Sandusky attempted to engage in anal penetration on at least 16 occasions and at times did penetrate him.

Pedophile behavior is well documented and it is very likely that Sandusky’s preferred victims were teenagers.  The younger boys were being groomed for later abuse.

Testimony by retired state police Corporal Joseph Leiter, stated that Victim 4 at first refused to talk to police.  "He curled up in the fetal position on the end of his couch."  Victim 4 was 27 years old when Leiter conducted that interview.  It is reasonable to conclude that these were the victims that suffered the worst of the sexual abuse from Jerry Sandusky. 

The PA State Police Investigation Avoids Second Mile/Sandusky's Home

The Patriot News stated the discovery of the 1998 University Park Police report was the big break in the case.  However, according the the Freeh Report (page 83), the state police obtained the report on January 3, 2011 -- over two years into the investigation.  By that time all of the victims but one (Victim 8) had been identified. 

Records also show that the state police did not obtain a search warrant for the Second Mile files until January 2011 -- over two years into the investigation.  It is beyond credulity that the state police, who were investigating the founder and face of Second Mile, and whose victims were participants in Second Mile programs, did not get a warrant for Second Mile at the outset of the investigation. 

In July 2011, the AG's office filed a motion to hold Second Mile in contempt for not producing files requested through a secret grand jury subpoena.   The AG's office dropped the contempt motion in October 2011, when Second Mile produced some of the files from the early 2000s.  Other files remained missing.  A subpoena for their financial records wasn’t delivered until after Sandusky was charged on Nov. 4, 2011. 

Records also show that the state police did not get a search warrant for Sandusky's residence until June 21, 2011.  Nearly three years after the beginning of the investigation, and more than seven months after acknowledging that they had Sandusky on 400 counts of child abuse.  Again, it is well documented that pedophiles engage in the trading, distribution, and selling of child pornography over the internet, as well as use it to introduce their child victims to sexual experiences.  In 1998, Victim 6 stated that Sandusky offered to take him to his house were he had a “cool computer” and he “could sit on his lap and they could go on-line.”  The police had access to this report, as it was attached to the 1998 PSU police report, yet they waited six months to get the warrant for Sandusky's home (and his computer).

Based on information from a source on the Second Mile staff, state police did not search the offices of Second Mile or interview Second Mile staff employees from 2008 to January 2012.  

The mother of Victim 6 could not have been more right, “This whole thing just stinks so much more than we all know.”

Except that now we’re finding out.

Updated 12/6/2012

Freeh Lied About 1998 and Here's The Proof

by Ray Blehar

I'm willing to let the determination of the authenticity of the Freeh Report exhibits to the document forensics and computer forensics experts and put my focus back on analyzing information and determining if Freeh's findings can be supported by the evidence in his report.

Let's take a look back at the evidence that erased 111 wins from the record book back to 1998 -- that PSU officials were aware of a child sexual abuse investigation of Sandusky and were continuously updated on the investigation's progress.

Altered E-mail Found in Freeh Report Contains Damaging Info About DPW's Role in 1998 Investigation

"Insider" left trails of evidence suggesting Freeh and others are covering for DPW’s failure

by

Ray Blehar

Part I: The Insider

Louis Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel’s (SIC) diverse “membership included men and women with extensive legal, law enforcement and child protection backgrounds who were experienced in conducting independent, complex, and unbiased investigations.” 

---

Apparently one of these individuals chose to be more unbiased than the rest of the group. This person may have been a strong advocate for preventing child abuse, thus he/she would want the public to know which organization really needs to improve how they do business. 

Note: This is not the leaker of the e-mails prior to release of the report.

This individual took advantage of Freeh’s lack of knowledge and experience with e-mail and PSU’s agreement not to review the document before publication, to alter e-mails, insert evidence Exhibits and text at or near the last editorial review of the report that points the finger at DPW for dropping the ball in 1998 and how PSU officials (beyond the four identified) were complicit in covering for DPW.  The most damaging evidence includes:

• A DPW e-mail on 13 May 1998, just 10 days into the investigation, informing PSU that they wanted to “resolve the matter quickly.” (Exhibit 2B)
• Exhibits 2H and 2I, indicating 14 signs of suspected child abuse that were uncovered on the first two days of the investigation and turned over to DPW on May 5^th. This exhibit also contained the first name of the other child and the name of the apartments in which he lived.
• Tom Harmon providing an update to Gary Schultz in which he expresses concern over DPW’s role in the investigation due to a conflict of interest with Second Mile. (Page 49)
• Exhibit 6A, an affidavit from former PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, who does not identify DPW as having a role in the 1998 investigation, yet reviewed the 1998 University Park Police Report that clearly identified DPW and Lauro. 

The clues left behind by the insider included: the odd numbering scheme of Appendix A that was ordered 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10; footnotes referencing exhibits that were out of sequence; turning the pages in Exhibit 2H and 2I on their sides; and including exhibits that provide information that undermines Freeh's findings rather than supporting them. 

Part II: Chronology of time and date stamps

Page 11 of the Freeh Report states: The University Staff provided a large volume of raw data from computer systems, individual computers and communication devices. The Special Investigative Counsel performed forensic analysis of this raw data independent of the University Staff. 

This sounds great in theory, but did not work well in practice.
On Exhibit 2B from the Freeh Report below I have added two arrows  labeled “A” pointing out the date stamps that are out of order. Chronology of e-mail either flows up the page or down the page. If you go to Exhibit 2C (farther down the page) of the Freeh Report, you’ll see a more correct, but not complete, flow of e-mail between Curley and Schultz regarding the updates. 

Conclusion A: Exhibit 2B is not raw data and has been altered. This e-mail was examined by government computer security and cyber experts who confirmed it was altered.  It is also a signal that other e-mail evidence may be altered. 

The more critical piece of evidence is at “B,” which states that DPW has decided to resolve this quickly. This e-mail was sent just days after the DPW brought in an unlicensed counselor, John Seasock, to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of the Victim 6. It was three weeks before DPW investigator Jerry Lauro finally got around to interviewing Sandusky.

The conclusion that inclusion of this e-mail is the work of an “insider” is drawn from the fact that the footnote referencing it as the source to the passage “coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Exhibit 2C, below, could have been used to source the information about “coach is anxious” because it provides a more correct, but not complete, chain of correspondence between Curley and Schultz. 

Conclusion B: Exhibit 2B serves the purpose of leaking damaging information about DPW (that Freeh did not explore otherwise in the text of the report). 

Part III: “Landscape” Notes Contain Signs of Abuse/Child’s First Name

The other evidence that the insider(s) placed to get the reader’s attention are Exhibits 2H and 2I that were place in “landscape” format in Appendix 2. The remainder are in “portrait” layout or as you would routinely read a page of a book. Mostly, people flip through an appendix, if they read it at all, therefore the “landscape” layout was there to make the reader stop and look. While the handwriting is difficult to read (translated here), it ends up that 14 signs of abuse, plus the first name of the other child are revealed on those pages. The information in those pages was revealed to DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro, when he took over the case from John Miller of CYS. It was a part of Det Schreffler's police report. 

Conclusion C: The insider likely made this change at the last minute, as evidenced by 2H being the first of the exhibits footnoted in the text. The order of the footnotes is 2H, 2A, 2I, and so on. Exhibits 2H and 2I provide exculpatory evidence in terms of PSU officials being responsible for concealing Sandusky’s behavior from the public. PSU officials were not trained investigators of child abuse. The DPW and CYS investigators had the training to recognize the evidence and know Sandusky exhibited sighs of grooming children for abuse as Dr Chambers reported.

Part IV: Tom Harmon’s Concern about DPW and Second Mile

In 1998, Penn State Director of Public Safety, Tom Harmon had the role of relaying information from Detective Schreffler to Gary Schultz. What went up the flagpole to Schultz is likely not the full and complete accounting of the facts, but what Harmon thought Schultz needed to know about the investigation of Sandusky. One of the things Harmon relayed to Schultz was his concern about DPW’s role in the investigation and a potential conflict of interest with Second Mile.

"Harmon continued to provide Schultz with information about DPW's role and their potential conflict of interest with the Second Mile."Harmon provided an update to Schultz on May 8, 1998 reporting that 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 to week and a half. I don't anticipate anything to be done until that happens."　

According to the Freeh Report (page 49) it was the local CYS that had the conflict of interest with Second Mile.   Both CYS and DPW had conflict of interest issues with Second Mile. Both were receiving services that reduced the burden on state and local tax coffers. But the real reason Lauro was assigned to the case was because DPW was responding to the Child Abuse Hotline Call from Dr. Alycia Chambers. Hotlines and customer service lines all work the same. You call, get a number, and someone resolves the problem. Jerry Lauro was assigned to take care of the incident – it was that simple.

Freeh’s group twists and contorts the facts about Alycia Chambers’ report. On May 4^th, 1998, Chambers interviewed the mother of Victim 6 and her child, who she had been seeing for some time before the incident. Chambers knew that Victim 6 was not a foster child. Freeh has made this up out of whole cloth. Freeh mentions a referral sheet about this foster child but does not provide this "referral sheet" (Freeh at 43) 

“ However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case” (e.g., CYS had various contracts with Second Mile - including placement of children in a Second Mile residential program?" the Second Mile's executive director had a contract with CYS to conduct children's evaluations?’ and the referral sheet from Chambers indicated the case might involve a foster child).°"In light of these conflicts, the Department of Public Welfare (“DPW") took over the case from CYS on May 5. DPW officials in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania took the lead because of Sandusky's high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro.”

Conclusion D: These lines of text could easily be slipped in by the insider without Freeh or anyone on his team catching it – and its and important piece of information about DPW’s interest in strongly pursuing the case. It’s worth repeating that Freeh’s story on DPW taking over the case due to a conflict of interest is false.

Part V: Altered police report from 1998

 Detective Ronald Schreffler compiled the police report in chronological order of events and in meticulous detail. The first eight pages are numbered, 1 of 8, 2 of 8, and so on, up to 8, but after that the pages are not numbered, with the exception of two pages relating to one of the stings set up for Sandusky.

Careful examination of the police report, reveals that the police report was altered. More specifically, several dates and times appear to be out of sequence in the timeline of events surrounding Jerry Lauro’s scheduling of the interview of the “psychologist” who would evaluate the child now known as Victim 6. The cant of the minutes 57 and 55, as well as the 5 at the solid arrow indicate that they were cut and pasted into position off a hard copy, then re-imaged (scanned to a pdf). Finally, the time of Schreffler’s pick-up of the psychiatric report from Alycia Chambers was does not fit chronologically. 

Conclusion E: DPW was calling the shots in the investigation, as evidenced by Karen Arnold stating on May 7^th to hold off, then DPW moving forward a day later. May 5^th was the first day Lauro worked the case, thus the changed date (from May 8 to May 5 doesn’t fit). The changes to the times on May 8^th do not fit the chronology of events. Further investigation required

Part VI: Baldwin’s Affidavit Recalling 1998 Police Report

On January 3^rd, 2011, University Park Police officials provided the Pennsylvania State Police with a copy of the 1998 police report.

Upon learning of this, former PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin also requested and reviewed a copy of the police report, which includes details of the roles of CYS, DPW, the University Police and the District Attorney’s office. Baldwin who previously came under fire earlier for her dual representation of PSU and defendants Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, was asked to brief the PSU Board of Trustees in May 2011. Baldwin’s affidavit of January 16, 2012 (Exhibit 6A, below) states the many things she briefed to the BOT, but omits that DPW had a role in the investigation. 

 

Conclusion F: January 2012 may be a year or so removed from Baldwin’s first review of the 1998 police report, however the Grand Jury Presentment was released just months earlier and only mentioned DPW as the child abuse investigative agency. Is this an oversight by Baldwin or is it intentional? It is more likely the latter, given Baldwin’s dual representation issue at the grand jury.

Did PSU and Paterno get railroaded?  

The evidence leaked in the report by insider, and other evidence omitted, such as the police report and Chambers psychology report, (i.e., missing Exhibits 1 and 4) are indications that Louis Freeh’s group started an investigation with two predetermined conclusions (by design): 

1) Find what PSU officials did wrong in responding to child abuse allegations by Sandusky, and make sure everyone knows about it;

2) Ignore what everyone else did wrong, even if it what they did was worse than PSU, and do your best to make sure no one knows about it.

It is clear to anyone who has taken the time to fully examine the evidence in this case, that DPW could have and should have stopped Sandusky in 1998.

If DPW had done so, there would have been no 2001 shower incident for Mike McQueary to see and report to Joe Paterno. Obviously, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley would not have been involved either.

It appears more and more likely that Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley got railroaded to cover up for DPWs failure in 1998. It also appears that some of the operators of this railroad include PSU Counsel Cynthia Baldwin and PSU Special Task Force co-chairs Kenneth Frazier and Ronald J. Tomalis, among others, who were part of the group that decided to bring in Louis Freeh to drive nails into the coffin.

So, the remaining question is “why?” 

Just follow the money.