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…

PSU Officials Had Concerns About DPW in 1998

Ken Frazier did what Freeh did - selectively used evidence to state PSU was culpable for 1998. Other evidence indicates PSU officials were concerned about DPW's role - but Freeh left that documentary evidence out of his report.

By
Ray Blehar

At the March 15, 2013 BOT meeting Ken Frazier pointed to a few notes made by Gary Schultz as evidence PSU officials knew about child abuse in 1998.  In most cases, he misinterpreted the evidence.  Frazier was adamant: “I believe that we are entitled to look at the words and contemporaneous emails and other documents that draw the conclusions that we need to draw as a university.”  

However, a fuller view of evidence shows that PSU officials were concerned about DPW's role in the 1998 investigation.

The Evidence

The first piece of evidence is on page 49 of the Freeh Report: "Harmon continued to provide Schultz with information about DPW's role in the investigation and their potential conflict of interest with the Second Mile."  

The reference for this statement is "Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12)."  This note is not included in the Freeh Report Appendix, thus, it is another piece of evidence that Freeh chose not to include for the public to view.  As I noted in my WHVL interview, the 1998 police report, the psychology report of Chambers, the Seascock evaluation, and other key evidence was excluded from the report's Appendix.

The second piece of evidence is at Exhibit 2B, where Harmon writes on 5/13/1998:  "The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child.  They have not spoken to him.  It is still my understanding that they intend to do this.  I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly."

I found it unusual that a child protection agency would want to resolve an investigation quickly.  Under the law, DPW and CYS have sixty days to conduct an investigation and at just 10 days into this investigation - with Schultz's note indicating other children could be victims of Sandusky - DPW intends to resolve it quickly. 

The 1998 police report shows that DPW then waited 18 days to interview Sandusky and agreed to close the case right after the June 1st interview.   Notably, the record does not show that then-Centre County DA was part of the decision to end the investigation.  The DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, stated in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that he didn't have enough evidence to indicate a finding of abuse.

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

The next piece of evidence is at Exhibit 2C, where Schultz, after returning from vacation, he writes to Harmon on 6/8/1998 at 2:03AM:  "Tom, I've been holding some "catch-up time" on my calendar on Monday and I suggest we use a piece of it to meet and discuss the status (I also recall the last time we talked you indicated that there were some aspects of the this that you felt you should review with me when we had a chance to talk).  Please get ahold (sic) of Joan and see what time will work. thanks."

As Schultz continues catching up on his e-mail, the finds Harmon's e-mail of June 1, 1998, stating the case was closed.  At 2:04 AM, Schultz writes:  "Tom, you can ignore my earlier email, unless you feel we should talk more about this."  (Freeh Report, Exhibit 2D)

At this point in time, Harmon had already been notified by Ray Gricar that there would be no charges filed in the case and a discussion of concerns would have been moot.  However, this goes back to the point of the AG's request to Freeh not to interview Harmon who could have shared valuable insights about his concerns of the 1998 case.

Regardless, this evidence indicates that PSU officials had concerns about DPW's role in the 1998 case and subsequent reporting by this blog and others are in agreement that the 1998 case was poorly investigated.  Former FBI-profiler and child sexual abuse investigator, James Clemente, stated (in an e-mail to Wendy Silverwood) that the entire 1998 case should be reviewed.  In Clemente's interview on Media Mayhem, he specifically called out the evaluation by John Seasock as a major breakdown in the case.

Calling for Reforms

At the same Board meeting, Frazier continued his defense of the Freeh Report, stating that it wasn't chartered to look at the performance of CYS and DPW and that it was an internal investigation. He went on to say that the reforms made by PSU will ensure that incidents like the 2001 occurrence will now be reported to the proper authorities.   

And that is Frazier's and the majority of the BOT's biggest blind spot.

Given the state of Pennsylvania's child protection system, there's no guarantee that reporting abuse incidents the authorities, in 2001 or now, would stop incidents of child abuse.   

The evidence on the record, from a 2008 Health and Human Services review of DPW, shows that in 43% of the cases, children continue to be abused after DPW and/or CYS is contacted.

Frazier and the BOT's willingness to ignore the record and not call for improvements in Pennsylvania's child protection system continues to keep children in harm's way.

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.  

Who really failed to "report" the 2001 incident?

In the rush to judgment of PSU officials, many believed that Sandusky getting cleared in 1998 resulted in PSU officials thinking 2001 was a repeat of the prior incident.   However, few have considered the same could be said for CYS and DPW officials, who had been lulled into complacency about Sandusky for decades.

By

Ray Blehar

There are two major problems with the allegations that PSU officials didn't report Sandusky to authorities in 2001.   The first, and most obvious problem, is that under the law, PSU officials DID report it to the proper authorities.  In fact, they did it twice.  The second problem is that no one has considered that the PSU report was ignored by authorities.

Report to CYS

Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney recalled reporting the incident to Children and Youth Services. Schultz's statement is on page 213 of the Preliminary Perjury hearing transcripts, while Courtney's is on page 84 of the Freeh Report.

For some reason, these reports were immediately discounted because PSU didn't report the incident to DPW.  Legally, a report to DPW is not required if a report was made to CYS.  CYS has the responsibility, once notified, to file an abuse report with ChildLine.

Despite the Freeh team spending nine months on the PSU campus, there is no indication in the Freeh Report that the team took any investigative steps to determine if that report occurred.  Certainly, a group that allegedly could pin point the exact date and time of an internet search conducted 11 years prior (to find the chair of Second Mile) should have the wherewithal to check some phone records at PSU or CYS or check call logs to determine if a report was made.  

But those investigative steps weren't taken.

Also, few have considered that the OAG investigator did not check to see if a report was made in 2001.  Detective Anthony Sassano stated at the Preliminary Perjury hearing that he contacted CYS and DPW to check on a 2002 report of abuse.   Sassano indicated the agency officials answered negatively, however,  Sassano also stated that DPW had a record of the incident in its possession.  At some point, the Commonwealth expunged this record, but it appears the record survived at least until Sassano made the inquiry.  

Given the above, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that Schultz and/or Courtney did not make the report.  That's a tall order because the state can only rely on the testimony of the DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro (who is not a reliable witness) and Carol Smith, a CYS official who has every reason to want to shift the blame for Sandusky on PSU after her agency's miserable performance in 1998.

Report to The Second Mile

It is well documented and insdisputable that PSU made a report of the 2001 incident to The Second Mile.  Bruce Heim, a board member of the charity, stated he considered it a non-incident because he knew that Sandusky showered with children frequently.  Heim told Raykovitz not to report the incident to The Second Mile Board.

The Pennsylvania law on the books at the time of the incident required that PSU officials either make a report or cause an incident to be reported.  Considering that The Second Mile was responsible for the welfare of the child in question in the 2001 incident, and that Sandusky was an employee under contract of The Second Mile, it is beyond dispute that The Second Mile should have reported the incident.

No one, except one person, involved in the reporting of the incident at PSU could be considered a mandated reporter under the law.  A mandated reporter must come in contact with children as part of their professional duties.  Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley were in positions where they were not required to interact with minors.  The only person in the employment of PSU in 2001 who may have had interactions with children, as part of his job duties, was Mike McQueary.  McQueary had this interaction through his work at youth sports camps.

Complacency

Many have opined that PSU officials may have went soft on Sandusky because of the previous investigation of him in 1998 that resulted in no charges.  I think that is a plausible explanation.  Why pull in the police and the child welfare caseworkers for another investigation of a likely similar incident?  Just tell Sandusky to knock off the showering with kids and have The Second Mile get him some help with this "quirky" behavior.   

And while Second Mile is at it, send Bruce Heim to class with Jerry because Heim didn't think there was anything wrong with Jerry's behavior.

However, few have considered the complacency that was even more likely to have set in at CYS and DPW.

Consider that Sandusky successfully navigated the system's various background checks to become the adoptive father of five sons and a daughter, a foster parent, a host for a half-dozen Fresh Air Fund children from New York City and a congressional honoree as an "Angel in Adoption."

Court records also show Sandusky and his wife, Dottie, were designated to coordinate visits with his grandchildren in 2010 when one son's marriage began to disintegrate.

Pennsylvania laws require that licensed social workers screen prospective families through a number of nets, including FBI checks and child abuse clearances. Prospective parents undergo reference checks, interviews and a medical report that asks a physician to certify that an individual is mentally and physically prepared to be a parent. 

Therefore state (DPW) and county (CYS) officials had been dealing with the Sandusky's for decades prior to the 1998 incident to conduct the screenings for he and Dottie as adoptive and foster parents.  Those agencies had given the "green light" to the Sanduskys on numerous occasions, thus had little reason to suspect anything untoward about Jerry Sandusky.  

Their confidence about the "goodness" of Sandusky was evident in the notes from the 1998 investigation.  The caseworker from CYS, John Miller, despite having knowledge of numerous signs of possible child sexual abuse, possessing a damning psychological report, and being alerted to other possible victims was unsure about pressing forward with the investigation.  He called a meeting at CYS for them to "decide what to do."

As police records reveal, CYS procured John Seasock (at the request of DPW) to conduct a second evaluation of one of the children who were the subjects of the investigation in 1998.   This evaluation was done over  the objections of ADA Karen Arnold and University Park Police Detective Ronald Schreffler.  Seasock's evaluation stated Sandusky was not exhibiting any signs of possible sexual abuse and the 1998 investigation was effectively ended.

Given what transpired in 1998, it is certainly possible that CYS simply decided not to investigate the report of a similar sounding incident that was reported to them in 2001.

If anyone had a reason to be complacent about Jerry Sandusky, it was the child welfare officials who had approved him as an adoptive and foster parent for decades.