1998 Revisited and Other Ponderings

by Wendy Silverwood

A compilation of comments and questions from across the “boards”

The “PSU as villain” script had to be started for a specific reason. It was never supported by the facts, especially with respect to the 1998 incident, in which Centre County Children and Youth Services along with an investigator from PaDPW were involved. Curiously we find Nils Frederickson, PA OAG Acting Director of Communications, banging out the error filled script for the 1998 investigation in his Nov. 5, 2011 press release. Once the decision was made by the PA Office of Attorney General to turn this into PSU as the “bad guy”, everything else simply dropped off the radar.

It was no longer about Sandusky and his horrendous crimes, it was now about a grand PSU “conspiracy” that the Attorney General decided must have happened to “cover up” Sandusky’s activities. Let’s cut across the media roar, turn down the volume and really listen to what actually went on.  

Fundamentally this “cover up” didn’t exist 17 months ago and it still doesn’t exist today.

Perhaps someone wanted or needed or even insisted this come out of the gate as a giant Penn State “cover-up”. It could possibly be viewed as being devised by an individual or a group, e.g. the Surmas, with the goal of bringing PSU to its knees as an institution, settling old scores, wresting control and/or seeing petty vendettas through it.

Sandusky’s own loathsome conduct, especially given his status as an agent of the county and an executive director of a state licensed children’s charity became secondary. So instead of trying a case against a preferential child sexual offender to remedy criminal acts, it’s about bringing down PSU for possible political reasons.

We have $42 million and counting for “public relations” and crisis management, a $60 million hammering by the NCAA, an $8 million sham “investigation”, a banner-toting plane flying over campus for 3 days and enough high-priced consultants, PR hacks, compliance experts and second lawyers for the first lawyers that the issue is not Sandusky who culled his victims from a state licensed entity, but PSU and its “culture problems”. 

This all makes zero sense.  Problem is, nothing’s made sense.

The McQueary testimony makes no sense. The Freeh Report makes no sense. The NCAA sanctions make no sense. The “moral responsibility” statement by Noonan makes no sense. Freeh’s grandstanding press conference makes no sense. None of the facts line up for a “Conspiracy of Silence” to “protect the football program”.  

Looking at this more clearly and focusing on everything from the timeline of the investigation to Seasock’s bizarre conclusions argues that somebody was in a big hurry to get the 1998 investigation over with. 

That in and of itself should give us all cause for alarm.

The use of Counselor John Seasock in 1998 to contradict Dr. Chamber’s findings is puzzling. Seasock knows who involved him, and other than possibly of Sandusky, he is the only one who does. So when he doesn’t make an appearance for the Defense despite the Defense have a written, signed contemporaneous “report” known to have been provided to the Centre County DA, it raises a question. Is there a possibility that there is an individual or individuals in Centre County who has/have the most to lose if it would be publicly revealed who set up the Seasock evaluation and has/have managed somehow to keep it quiet?

Only someone at the county level of government would have had the familiarity with Seasock’s brand of “compliance”, familiarity with Ray Gricar, familiarity with Sandusky and familiarity with The Second Mile.

What is troubling is that whoever was responsible for recruiting and hiring John Seasock to evaluate the victim has received ZERO scrutiny. 

Another troubling aspect.

Why did the PA OAG direct Freeh to stay away from University Park Police Chief Tom Harmon? He was the person most directly at the center of the 1998 investigation. Freeh was tasked with looking into exactly what “went wrong” at PSU and he can’t speak to the one person at the center of everything?  A long-term former head of a large police department cannot be interviewed in an “independent” investigation? 

Does not make sense.

The person who put Freeh in place did so knowing that he would reach the “right”
result, and that Freeh would abide by the Attorney General’s rules and not put anyone in an awkward position by attempting to talk to people with actual knowledge of what they were being asked. So why did Freeh operate in tandem with the AG’s office?

Even Sara Ganim’s headlines’ promoted the prevailing narrative yet demanded corrections when new information surfaced. Those corrections, however, never materialized. 

More questions.

Why is Investigator Jerry Lauro of PaDPW getting a free pass? Clearly CYS and PA DPW are at fault for the 1998 situation. Perhaps because they had such a cushy relationship with The Second Mile they cannot or will not ever admit to their responsibility. Why wasn’t The Second Mile immediately turned upside down by the State? The PA OAG has oversight of non-profits in the Commonwealth; visiting The Second Mile offices did not require a subpoena and could have swiftly been dealt with.  Why hasn’t CYS & DPW been a focal point for the indignation about Sandusky? 

Where is the outrage at these agencies and why are no officials taken to task?

Taking on a hugely popular and politically connected entity like The Second Mile or those politicos that create for-profit juvenile prisons and the ensuing “Kids For Cash” scandal has not particularly been PA DPW’s strong suit. 

What does this tell us about the very systems we have in place to protect our kids?

 

We can only hope that Kathleen Kane’s office goes back to 1998 – and interviews the CYS head; the CYS intermediary; the DPW “supervisor”, who supposedly issued the interview order; Jerry Lauro; Victim Number 6's mom; Victim Number 6, to the extent he has any independent memory of the “incident”; retired Detective Schreffler; Officer Ralston; retired PSU Chief Tom Harmon; John Seasock and Dr. Chambers. 

And then begin to carefully and clearly connect the dots…

Mad Libs: Who was responsible for Sandusky's crimes

By
Wendy Sliverwood

Taken from page 5 of the Introduction of the Freeh Report:

“The evidence shows that ________________ also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower.  Again, ___________showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that ________________was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his ___________________for almost _______ years, and had an office just steps away from ___________.  At the very least, ___________ could have alerted the entire ______________ staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the ______________.  _________________also failed to alert the _________________about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky.  ________________ even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct.

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity. “

…If we replace “Paterno” with other key individuals we can make some reasonable conclusions…

Alycia Chambers – State College Psychologist

The evidence shows that Ms. Chambers’ colleagues were made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an agent of the County by virtue of his adoptive & foster parent status, and had an office in a childrens’ charity just minutes away from Ms. Chambers office.  At the very least, Ms. Chambers could have alerted the entire Centre County CYS staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into his home. Ms Chambers and her colleagues also failed to alert The Second Mile Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Jack Raykovitz – CEO The Second Mile

The evidence shows that Jack Raykovitz was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an Executive Director of The Second Mile, and had an office just steps away from Dr. Raykovitz.  At the very least, Dr. Raykovitz could have alerted the entire Second Mile staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child to Second Mile events, outings and camps.  Dr. Raykovitz also failed to alert CYS/DPW/Childline about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  Dr. Raykovitz instructed Sandusky to wear swimming trunks on future occasions when he showers with young boys.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity (while wearing swim trunks).

Child Protective Services

The evidence shows that Jerry Lauro and John Miller were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed reports with their agencies, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been the subject of abuse complaints by Debra Long (the natural mother of Matt Sandusky).  At the very least, Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller could have alerted The Second Mile in order to prevent Sandusky from one on one contact with children.  Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller also failed to alert the the Centre County courts about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct, even though Mr. Lauro was present at the Sandusky interview. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

The University Park Police

The evidence shows that Tom Harmon and Ronald Schreffler were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed a police report about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a PSU employee for thirty years, and had an office on the PSU campus.  At the very least, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Shreffler could have alerted the entire University Park Police Department in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child onto campus.  Mr. Harmon and Mr. Schreffler also failed to alert the Pennsylvania state police about the 1998 investigation or takeany further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct other Schreffler telling him not to repeat the practice of showering with children.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Multi-Media: Ray Blehar breaks down Nov 2011 grand jury presentment

Ray Blehar breaks down the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment at Franco's Town Hall held in Pittsburgh on Saturday, November 10, 2012. 

This event was covered by local media, including the Centre Daily Times and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 

Matt Morgan, of the CDT, wrote that my presentation focused on Victim 8, which was the first presentation I made that day.  Bill Schnacke, of the PPG, more correctly stated that my presentation focused on the state and local agencies failures in 1998.  Neither paper mentioned the chronology of the crimes or the fact that the OAG masked the associations of the victims. 

Special thanks to Linda Berkland for creating this video:

Franco's Town Hall, Eileen Morgan, Ray Blehar, and Panel Discussion video (1 hr. 56 mins).

Ganim Preview: Article on Psych Reports Required Corrections

Sara Ganim's story on Jerry Lauro was pre-mature and demanded corrections when new information surfaced.  Those corrections never materialized.

by

Ray Blehar 

First off, I don't know Sara Ganim.  I've never met her or spoke to her.  I am not in the business of making personal attacks on people and I urge anyone who reads this blog not to engage in such behavior.  It is hurtful and non-productive.

After reading many of her columns, I was struck by the number of factual errors I found that could have been prevented had Sara simply done an internet search or two on her computer.  

Another important issue is "never rely on a single source" which in my employment as an analyst is rule number one.  In other words, instead of running with a story based on a single source, it may have better served Sara to wait a day until she could review the facts herself or confirm it with other sources.

Finally, there is the issue of slanting a story a certain way before the facts are known or to build on the narrative that existed at the time.  We all know the prevailing narrative was a cover up at Penn State.  However, had Ms. Ganim waited a day to review the evidence, she may have uncovered a new, completely different narrative.

The following story is one of her articles that would have been well served by all the above.

Patriot-News Special Report: 1998 Jerry Sandusky investigator would have pursued dropped case if he had seen hidden Penn State police report

1.  Headline promotes the prevailing narrrative -- PSU was covering up Sandusky's crimes.

Published: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 6:00 AM     Updated: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 12:23 PM

2.  Published one day before the public release of the 1998 PSU police report, the Chambers report, and the Seasock report.

By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News The Patriot-News

The state Department of Public Welfare investigator who closed a child sexual abuse investigation against Jerry Sandusky in 1998 said he likely would not have closed it had he seen reports from two psychologists who interviewed the young accuser.

3.  Only one psychologist (Chambers) interviewed Victim 6.  The other report was that of an unlicensed counselor (Seasock).

4.  The investigation involved two boys, not one.  This should have raised questions, such as, were there evaluations done on the second boy and if not, why not?   

"The course of history could have been changed,” Lauro said.

Jerry Lauro, brought in to investigate the child abuse claims against Sandusky, said Wednesday that Penn State police never shared those conflicting reports with him before he closed the case. Lauro said he closed the case because he did not believe there was enough evidence based solely on interviews.

5.  Lauro was completely aware of the second evaluation and he instructed CYS to arrange it, according to the 1998 police report. This interview took place on May 8th.  The investigation did not close until June 1st.  So, Lauro knew of the interview and had access to it.  

6. The first psychologic evaluation, conducted by Alycia Chambers, was released to DPW  on or about May 7th.   DPW had the report in its possession for nearly a month.  The Chambers report was also released to CYS (according to my discussion with her on October 12, 2012).  Therefore, DPW could have gotten access to Chambers report through CYS.

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 that psychologists had evaluated the boy, then 11, until a reporter who acquired the 100-page report approached Lauro and showed him the reports.

7.  Again, Lauro arranged the second evaluation of the child, so he definitely knew of the evaluation conducted by John Seasock.  Ganim would have learned this on March 23rd -- if she read the police report.

Penn State “Detective [Ron] Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” Lauro said, referring to reports from psychologist John Seasock and a female psychologist. Seasock concluded that the boy was not sexually abused two days before the case was closed. The report of the female psychologist who evaluated the boy right after the incident found Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming a victim for sexual abuse.

8.  Lauro may have been honest about Schreffler not sharing the reports with him, but that doesn't explain how Lauro didn't see either report -- especially the one that he arranged. 

“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.”

Schreffler, when reached by phone, declined comment. “My report speaks for itself,” he said before hanging up.

9.  Shreffler did not decline comment.  He provided a very strong statement about the facts of the case (i.e., "My report speaks for itself.")  Schreffler couldn't have been more right.  His report - even just the 13 or so page version that is publicly available - is a treasure trove of information.

Information about the two psychological reports surfaced last week when Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, made a formal request for copies of them in preparation for trial. Judge John Cleland ruled that Amendola can read them but can’t use them in court without getting his permission.

A source who reviewed the documents told The Patriot-News that he believed Seasock’s report that the boy was not abused was the reason that former and missing District Attorney Ray Gricar never pursued charges against Sandusky in 1998.

Gricar’s role has become the subject of much fodder and conjecture for two reasons: The case is the only other known time that police knew of allegations against Sandusky. And Gricar vanished in 2005. He was declared dead last summer but his case still stumps investigators, who say they have no evidence that his disappearance is linked to the Sandusky case.

When child abuse is reported, police and county Children and Youth Services typically conduct separate investigations. They work together but can have different conclusions.

In this case, since Centre County CYS worked closely with Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, Lauro was brought in from the state Department of Public Welfare to do the child abuse investigation.

10.  A search of the PA Child Protective Services Laws would have revealed that DPW was required to investigate ANY CASE involving an incident where the subject was an employee of a child welfare organization of Centre County, whether CYS had a close working relationship with that organization or not.

Schreffler and Penn State police closed the criminal investigation at Gricar’s request. But Lauro still could have decided to pursue the case within child protective services.

11. According to the police report, the investigation was concluded immediately after Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky on June 1, 1998.  Nothing in the report mentions that Gricar directed the case to be closed. 

That doesn’t mean Sandusky would have been charged. But it means the finding could have gone into the child abuse registry and The Second Mile might have been notified.

12.  A search of the laws  (Pa. 055  § 3490.91. and Pa. 055  § 3490.56.) would have revealed that  Centre County CYS was required, within 24 hours of receiving the report of suspected abuse,  to inform The Second Mile that Sandusky was under investigation and that CYS was required to notify The Second Mile at the end of the investigation, regardless of whether there was a finding of abuse.  

Lauro has said Schreffler also never told him the details of a meeting set up by police between Sandusky and the boy’s mother, in which police were listening secretly from another room. Prosecutors say Sandusky admitted to the mother that he touched her son and said, “I wish I were dead.”

“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room,” Lauro said last year. “He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.’ “

13.  As an investigative reporter, how could Ganim not be suspicious or skeptical about Lauro's statement regarding not knowing the details of what transpired in that sting?  

The mother of Victim Six says that she had believed Seasock was a paid consultant for CYS when she took her son to see him.

14. An internet search would have revealed that Seasock was employed by Renaissance Psychological Associates.  A day later, Ganim had access to the police report and Seasock's report that clarified the relationship between Seasock and CYS.

The other psychologist, whom the mother had contacted as soon as her son came home and told her that Sandusky had forced him to take a shared shower, saw her son over a longer period of time, she said.

15. The mother called the psychologist the next morning not that night.  Ganim would have learned this the day after this article was written.

“And that psychologist concluded that this incident ... was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” said a source who saw the report.

<end of article>

March 23, 2012:  1998 Police Report, Seasock Report, and Chambers Report

The day after the publishing of the above article, the 1998 Police Report, the Seasock Report, and the Chambers report were released to the public.

The 1998 police report blows quite a few holes in Lauro's version of the 1998 investigation and what he knew or didn't know.  It strains credulity that Lauro could have set up the second evaluation and then never asked or sought out the report before closing his case.

The Chambers report provides information to correct the date and time that the mother of Victim 6 called the psychologist.

The Seasock report states for whom he was employed and the police report shows that he was brought into the investigation by CYS -- at the request of DPW and, most significantly, against the orders of Assistant District Attorney Karen Arnold.

The latter is quite a development and would seem rather newsworthy, but the Patriot News did not report those facts in the days following the release of the three reports (or ever, based on searches of their web-site).

The Lauro narrative became the accepted version of events -- that somehow the Chambers report "got lost" and that Seascock mysteriously appeared and provided the fateful evaluation that cleared Sandusky.

Many of us have known for some time that Lauro's narrative was questionable, if not false. 

REPEAT:  Please refrain from any personal attacks on Ms. Ganim or anyone else associated with the Patriot News.  

Sue Paterno: One woman speaks. What about the rest?

Sue Paterno did a remarkable job in the Katie Couric interview, and when asked, she stated she was not aware of the 1998 incident.  She was not asked what she knew of the 2001 incident. What about the rest of the wives and mothers of the key players?

By
Ray Blehar

Many have asked how the State College community, PSU officials, and others could not have known about Jerry Sandusky.  Sue Paterno was among the many who didn't know and said she had no idea about the 1998 incident or had any inkling of Sandusky's criminal behavior until 2011, when she read the grand jury presentment. 

Katie didn't ask Sue about 2001, so I reached out to a family member who said it was unlikely Joe would have told Sue because he was very careful about concluding anything about people until the facts were known.  In addition, Joe flew to Pittsburgh within one hour of being told by McQueary, then consulted with Curley and Schultz the next morning when he got home.  At that point or shortly after Schultz consulted with Wendell Courtney, Joe would have been told that the information needed to be held confidentially.

About Mothers

Sue is a mother of five and a grandmother of seventeen children.  As a mother and grandmother, if she had known about Jerry Sandusky's behavior, I have no doubt that she would not have stayed silent.  As one person said at the King of Prussia event, "If Sue had known, she would have grabbed a pair of scissors from the kitchen drawer and went after Sandusky herself."

I believe that instinct to protect children is ingrained in most women and if any women involved in this scandal had known that Sandusky was abusing children they would have not stayed silent.

First, they would not have let their children near Sandusky.  Sue Paterno stated she let her children play in the pool with Sandusky on bowl trips.  It has been reported that Tim Curley's son also interacted with Sandusky after 2001.

Also, if they knew of Sandusky's abuse, they would have likely gone to authorities.  None did.

About Married People

I was married for 22 years and can tell you that most married men - at some point - talk to their wives.  Sometimes that talking can even evolve into a conversation.

Depending on the person of course, how open they might be with things will differ. But for the most part, you can find out a lot of good information by talking to the wife - as Katie Couric did with Sue Paterno.

In this case, there are a number of wives who may or may not have been told about the 1998 and/or 2001 incidents. Given the pending court cases, few of these women were free to talk.

I only spoke to one - Dr. Chambers and  I was able to talk to a husband or two and some family members. John Ziegler spoke with Dottie Sandusky.  As for the rest, I'll address the probabilities of their knowledge of the cases.

Dottie Sandusky

Dottie and Jerry Sandusky got married in September 1966, therefore they have been married over 46 years.  Many people have asked how could she not have known?   John Ziegler interviewed Dottie, who still maintains her husband is innocent of his crimes.

I have no personal knowledge of Dottie, however I believe this passage from "Child Molesters: A Behavioral  Guide" is valuable to understand that she fits the profile of a wife of a pedophile.

" When they do marry, pedophiles often marry either a strong, domineering woman or a weak, passive woman-child. In any case they will marry a woman who does not have high sexual expectations or needs. A woman married to a pedophile may not realize her husband is a pedophile, but she does know he has a “problem” – a sexual-performance problem. Because she may blame herself for this problem and because of the private nature of people’s sex lives, most wives will usually not reveal this information to an 

investigator;"

Information on the public record states Dottie was known as "Sarge" -- in other words, Sandusky selected a strong domineering woman who would be the perfect compliment to his childlike, goofy behavior.

Dottie testified that early in their marriage they tried to have children, but it didn't work out, so they became adoptive parents.  Interestingly enough, neither the prosecution or the defense inquired about the sexual relationship between Jerry and Dottie -- which would seem to be highly relevant in a case where someone is accused of being a pedophile.

Dottie and her other five children stood by Jerry at trial.  Matt Sandusky was originally supportive of Jerry but then turned and admitted he had been abused.  Dottie attributed Matt's accusations of abuse to dishonesty and bi-polar disorder.  She stated she never saw Jerry abuse a child and does not believe he is guilty.

Dr. Alycia Chambers

Dr. Chambers appears to be one of the few people who recognized what Sandusky was.  The others were her colleagues at the practice in which she worked (and perhaps Jerry Lauro and John Miller -- but they're not women).   According to a telephone interview I conducted with Dr. Chambers on October 12, 2012, she did the right thing - to an extent - and wrote a report on Sandusky's behavior and submitted it to DPW, CYS, and the University Park Police for the 1998 investigation.  During the interview, Dr. Chambers asked, "how did that other guy get in there?"  Meaning, how did Seasock end up interviewing Victim 6.  She went on to lament that she had been seeing Victim 6 for a period of time and for the DPW and CYS officials to send the child to a stranger - and a man - to discuss possible sexual abuse was a mistake.

She was 100% correct in her assessment.

However, if you want to discuss someone who "should have done more," perhaps Dr. Chambers might be that person.  Chambers knew that Sandusky's behavior fit the description of grooming. She also knew that the child was in The Second Mile and of Sandusky's association with that organization.

Therefore, why didn't Chambers "do more" after learning Sandusky was cleared?   I'm not suggesting that she go public or demand that the investigation be re-opened, but why not get "clearance" from the mother to release her report in a confidential manner to officials at The Second Mile, so that they could better monitor Sandusky's activities with children.

Sandra Spanier

I can state with near certainty that Sandra Spanier had no idea about 1998 because her husband, Graham, had no recollection of the incident.  And Dr. Spanier has a very good memory.

Dr. Spanier told Freeh's group, upon viewing the e-mails from 1998, that he had a vague recollection of the first and no recollection of the last.  The first e-mail was very general and didn't even mention Sandusky's name.

Graham Spanier did not see the second 1998 e-mail because he was out of the country when he received it and then he deleted it without reading it upon his return.  It was one e-mail in a group of several hundred that he would have reviewed upon return and, as was his practice, he would read the top e-mail in the chain and delete those of the same subject below it in the chronology.  At the time of the 1998 investigation, PSU was negotiatiing Sandusky's retirement, thus Spanier likely read the top e-mail about the retirement negotiations an deleted all others referencing Jerry Sandusky.

it is also highly unlikely that Graham informed her of the 2001incident.  Through this investigation, I learned that Spanier often worked 15 hours days and that he was not one to bring "work" home from the office.  Spanier's own recollection of the 2001 event is mostly of the 15 minute meeting with Tim and Gary, where he learned of the incident, was told it was "horsing around", and wasn't told the identity of the witness. 

Not a lot to discuss with his wife, even if he chose to do so and probably not the highlight of his day.

Karen Schultz

If I had to pick among the wives of the PSU officials who may have known about 1998, it would be Karen Schultz.   Her husband, Gary, received the reports about the investigation directly from police chief, Tom Harmon and Schultz knew more details, thus he had more to tell if he so chose.

However, Schultz's behavior in keeping the 1998 investigation's details confidential was evident in the e-mails he wrote to Curley -- and eventually Spanier (although Spanier never read it).  It is highly probable that Harmon advised Schultz that the investigation was a confidential matter at the outset.  Therefore, the probability is very low that he would tell his wife about something that could be potentially damaging to Jerry Sandusky -- who was a highly respected coach and pillar of the community (or at least appeared so).

Similarly, Schultz's handwritten note of 2/12/2001 (Exhibit 5C) is marked "Confidential."  Schultz consulted with then-PSU Counsel Wendell Courtney the very day he was informed of the incident.  It is highly probable that Courtney advised Schultz of the law about reporting and confidentiality.  And again, Sandusky remained a highly respected, pillar of the community, so it is unlikely that Schultz would have disclosed the investigation to his wife.

Linette Courtney

I have no reservations when I say Linette Courtney did not know about the 1998 incident.  That's because Wendell Courtney was unaware of that incident, as noted on the Errata Sheet to the Freeh Report:

"Corrected Text:  Courtney e-mails Schultz a newspaper story about the Sandusky charges and states:  "I was never aware that "Penn State police investigated inappropriate touching in a shower' in 1998."

This is not an insignificant point in terms of the confidentiality of the 1998 investigation and that Gary Schultz complied fully with the law in not disclosing the details of the investigation (Pa. 055 Section 3490.91).   
After the 1998 investigation was underway, Schultz could not disclose the information -- even to the PSU General Counsel. 

As for 2001, Courtney was informed of the alleged abuse incident on February 11, 2001, however, he was bound by attorney-client privilege from disclosing the information.  And again, to release unsubstantiated allegations against a pillar of the community, Sandusky, would not only have been inappropriate, but as Courtney well knew, could subject him to a defamation lawsuit.
One final set of corroborating evidence is that Linette Courtney served on the Corporate/State Board of Directors for The Second Mile from 2005 to 2008.  Most assuredly, had she known that Sandusky was involved in any abuse situation, she would not have volunteered to be a Director for The Second Mile Board.

Joan Coble

Joan was Gary's administrative assistant who was copied on one e-mail (Exhibit 5F, Subject: Confidential) between Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. The e-mail did not mention any names, nor did it contain any details about the investigation.

Melinda Curley

Melinda Curley would not have known the details about 1998. As evidenced by the e-mails, Schultz withheld the details of the investigation from Curley.  Curley got an initial heads up from Schultz of which we don't know the content, however, we can conclude it didn't make a great impression on Curley.  He didn't remember anything about 1998 in 2011.  Tim Curley got one update - which contained minimal information - during the investigation and was informed that it closed with no criminal charges. 

Some mention of the 2001 investigation may have been made by Tim to Melinda.  Curley was called to Paterno's house on a Sunday morning, which would be unusual.  When he returned, it is highly likely his wife asked him what the meeting was about and Curley may have given her a vague notion about some issue with a coach.  However, based on the vague description given to Paterno by McQueary, it is highly unlikely that he told Melinda that Sandusky was engaged in a sex act with a child.

Judith Dranov

Dr. Dranov was called to the McQueary home at approximately 9PM on a Friday night, February 9, 2001 and stayed there until about 11PM that night.  Upon arriving home, if Mrs. Dranov was still awake, it is likely she asked Dr. Dranov what he was doing at the McQueary's.  Given the business relationship between the two men, Dranov could have easily said it was a business discussion.  Or he could have told the truth and said the Mike witnessed something in the showers, but couldn't really say what he saw because it was out of his view.  Because Dranov's testimony clearly states that Mike couldn't articulate what he saw to him, it is likely that he gave his wife the same description of the event.  

Anne McQueary

Mike McQueary admitted during trial testimony that he told his family members about the incident.  On page 213 of the trial transcript, it states: "My family over time came to know what I had witnessed -- but again I'm saying over time." 

McQueary's family knew (over time) he witnessed an "extremely sexual" act between Sandusky and a young boy and none of them -- not even Anne McQueary, thought they should do something (like report it) to prevent Sandusky from committing other crimes like the one Mike allegedly described?     Mike said no one at PSU told him to keep it quiet, so was there a "family pact" to keep this secret?

This is an extremely troubling discovery.  Why would the McQueary family protect a pedophile?

Barbara McQueary

Again, Mike McQueary admitted at the trial that he had told his girlfriend at the time about the details. It is not clear if his current (now estranged) wife was his girlfriend in 2001, however, his statement about telling his family likely covers his wife.  Therefore, his wife was informed, at some point, that Mike witnessed Sandusky engaged in an extremely sexual act with a child, but didn't inform anyone or go to the authorities.

Perhaps the bond between husband, wife, and the family prevented the women (and the men) that knew from coming forward. 

Who Else?

While McQueary testified that he didn't tell the guys in the building or his buddies about what he observed, we know that testimony is false.

McQueary told an undisclosed number of people in an internet chat room.  And the Freeh Report footnote on page 88 states he told an equipment manager about the incident.

So the group that was told about the 2001 incident is larger than we know, but to get to the bottom of what McQueary said, it is likely you'd have to find someone with no attachment or bond to McQueary or any of the other witnesses/individuals involved.

And I believe the best source to provide that information is noted on page 55 of "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Guide."

Find an ex-wife or an ex-girlfriend.

Letter to Jennifer Storm, head of Dauphin Co. Victim Witness Assistance Program

If there's one thing that I found extremely troubling during the Sandusky Scandal, it was the attitudes of the so-called "victim advocates." It was apparent to me that the majority of the "advocates" only cared about punishing people and not fixing the system.

By
Ray Blehar

I read this article on Penn Live about a couple of so-called Victim's Advocates who condemned the Paterno's report as not helpful to the victims. Jennifer Storm called the Paterno's report a "setback."

What I find truly amazing - and I will write more about this - is the complete lack of understanding of the limits of memory.  Ms. Storm, and many others believe, that Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary and everyone else who testified in the scandal have a perfect memory of what happened.

This defies research on long-term memory, which states that the brain does not store the sensory version of what transpired as it would in short term memory. People retrieve a perception of what they thought was stored in their short term memory.  And of course, there are limits to long term memory.

So, Ms. Storm is not well versed on memory, but what really ticks me off about her, Roxine Behrens, PSU Child Rights, and countless others that have condemned PSU (while not raising a single question about the state's failure), is that they believe they speak for the victims.

I assure you, they do not.

So, I wrote:

From: Ray Blehar <>
To: "jstorm@dauphinc.org" <jstorm@dauphinc.org>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:46 AM
Subject: You should be ASHAMED of yourself

Dear Jennifer,
I am appalled that you believe that YOU THINK YOU KNOW about the healing process of the victims in the Sandusky case.

These young men are all individuals and all of them have different methods of moving beyond the abuse in their past.  Several of them hold no ill will toward Joe Paterno and Penn State, but you seem to think you can speak for them.

Also, I am appalled that your web-site contains an advertisement for Ben Androezzi's law firm.  According the the trial transcripts, Mr. Andreozzi went along wth the State Police lying to his client about information they had about other victims in the case.  These troopers were caught lying on the stand in the Sandusky trial.  In fact, Rossman lied on two separate occasions.

Troopers Rossman and Leiter repeated that practice on several occasions in attempts to get potential witnesses to admit to crimes by Sandusky.

In the case of Victim 6, Corporal Leiter told the boy's mother that they had Sandusky on 400 counts of sex crimes, when at the time there were only two Victims -- Aaron Fisher and the unknown Victim 2.

It is abundantly clear you do not have a shred of decency or fairness in your assessment of who was responsible for letting Sandusky roam free for 14 years.

The evidence in the Freeh Report and the police report show that two caseworkers received reports of Sandusky showering with two boys.  They were informed of at least 14 signs of possible child sexual abuse, including the fact that one of the children took a shower AFTER arriving home from showering with Sandusky and then took another shower the next morning.

These caseworkers also possessed a damning psychological report from Dr. Alycia Chambers stating that Sandusky was exhibiting pedophile/grooming behaviors.  Their response was to find an unlicensed counselor to provide a 'second opinion' that cleared Sandusky.  Mr. Freeh's report does quite a good job hiding these facts from the public, however I interviewed Dr. Chambers, who confirmed she provided her reports to DPW, CYS, and the University Park Police.

Where is your condemnation of those agencies, Jennifer?

From your biography, I can see your long history as a state employee.  Perhaps your employment has biased your views on this case -- or perhaps you were trotted out by your "handlers" in Harrisburg to stick up for Mr. Freeh's error laden account of the Sandusky scandal.

In any case, I can see you certainly don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

In closing, I would like to state that your opinions and those of other so-called child protection advocates have been sickening to me throughout this scandal.

Rather than facing the facts about the sorry state of child protection in Pennsylvania (400 children murdered since 2002), all of you have focused on punishing people who have never gotten due process under the law.

I can appreciate your animous for Sandusky, but I am completely disgusted by your opinions on four men who were blamed for Sandusky crimes on the thinnest of evidence.

I promise that you will soon find out the truth of this scandal and things will not be pretty in Harrisburg when it is exposed.

Sincerely,
Raymond M. Blehar